Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Hypothecated Taxation

Mr. Norman Baker: If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of hypothecated taxation. [61745]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): In general, the Government determine their expenditure according to need rather than the source of the revenue, but we will continue to look at each case on its merits.

Mr. Baker: Does the Minister agree that the recent Marshall report on energy taxation represents a good example of what an hypothecated tax might provide? Will she then explain why the Chancellor's advisers have been briefing that that has been kicked into the long grass—into the very long grass? Will she give an undertaking that the Marshall proposals will be implemented in this Parliament, or is the Treasury still stuck in the 1950s?

Ms Hewitt: The Marshall report is extremely welcome. It has moved forward significantly the debate on a possible tax on business use of energy. We are now looking in detail at the complex technical issues that the Marshall report raises. He recommended further work on the subject. We are continuing to carry that out and to consult on the matter.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Minister heard of the Tobin tax, an internationally co-ordinated tax directed against currency speculators? That money could then be used for third-world debt and for international development. As Labour is good at reviews, might it not be a good idea to have a look at that idea and to feed it into the international community

Ms Hewitt: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware of and welcome the work that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done in pursuing proposals for reform of the global financial architecture. No doubt the Tobin tax proposals will be debated within that context.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: Given the statement by the Chancellor in the pre-Budget statement that there

would be a cut in vehicle excise duty for small cars, and the thinking of the Chancellor and the Treasury about hypothecated taxes, is it the Minister's view that any surplus revenue brought about by changes to vehicle excise duty should form an hypothecated tax to be used for the environment?

Ms Hewitt: As I have already said, it remains our view that, in general, expenditure should be determined according to need rather than the source of the revenue. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the problems that can arise when revenue is inappropriately hypothecated to particular expenditure goals. As I said, we will continue to look at each case on its merits.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the Minister accept that, although there is a general reluctance among the public to pay increased taxes when they believe that the money may go simply into a bottomless pit of Government expenditure, there would be a willingness to pay hypothecated taxation because people would then be clear that the money was being spent on education and health. Perhaps it would give some political parties, not least my own, the courage to go to people and say that, if they want improved services, they have to pay for them.

Ms Hewitt: I am sure that my hon. Friend and, indeed, all hon. Members will welcome the additional £40 billion that the Government have committed to schools and to hospitals. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the official Opposition have apparently decided to oppose that additional expenditure. As I said, we will continue to look at each case on its merits, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister earlier this week that, where a local authority decides to carry out a pilot programme of congestion charging on the roads, it will be allowed to put up to 100 per cent. of that revenue into worthwhile transport-related projects.

Mr. William Ross: Is it not the case that, originally, the road fund taxation was supposed to be an hypothecated tax to build roads? If my memory serves me well, income tax in the 1890s was set up to build battleships. Does the fate of those two taxes not show the folly of any hypothecated tax? Will the Minister stick firmly to principles that she has enunciated to the House?

Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that interesting excursion into the history of taxes. The Inland Revenue has recently opened an exhibition on the history of income tax. I think that income tax was originally introduced to pay for the Napoleonic wars, but the point that the hon. Gentleman makes is extremely valid. In general, expenditure should be decided according to need rather than the source of the revenue. Any proposals for exceptions to that should be considered as we consider them: on their merits.

Economic Growth

Mr. Ben Chapman: What plans he has to review the methodology for calculating national economic growth rates. [61746]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Office for National Statistics has recently reviewed its methods for estimating national economic growth. Its work is important, as it informs the discussions of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. The Government welcome today's decision by the Bank to cut interest rates. As the Bank said, it follows a weakening in global economic activity. The cut was made possible only because the Government are steering a course of economic stability in an uncertain and unstable world.

Mr. Chapman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that our economic growth forecasts are based on sound methodology, but are also cautious and prudent? Does he also agree that Labour Members are in the business of realism and not pessimism? Does he further agree that that contrasts sharply with Conservative Members, who are constantly taking the pessimistic view and talking down the economy and the United Kingdom?

Mr. Byers: It is a matter of great regret that Conservative Members fail to recognise the underlying strengths of our economy. The fact is that 400,000 more people are in work now than when we took office, on 1 May 1997. In the shadow Chancellor's own constituency, there has been a 29 per cent. reduction in the number of those who are out of work. I should hope that he would be able to knowledge that, and to recognise the United Kingdom's underlying economic strengths. The Government are not prepared to go back to the days when he was a Treasury Minister—the days of boom and bust, interest rates at 15 per cent., inflation at 10 per cent., and over 1 million jobs lost. That was the reality. We shall not go back to those days. We are steering a course of stability in an uncertain world.

Mr. John Wilkinson: May I suggest a methodology that may be more readily understood by the general public—counting the tally of P45s issued? Yesterday, 200 were issued at Alsthom; today, 1,200 were issued at Doulton; and probably a lot more will be issued tomorrow and the day after. Is not the economy heading for great stability against the rocks?

Mr. Byers: That was a very good example of the way in which Conservative Members have a very partial approach to events in the economy. The reality is—as always—that, at particular times, some areas face particular difficulties, whereas other areas create employment opportunities. However, to consider the economy in the round, the figures and the facts show—I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like facts to get in the way of his own prejudice—that 400,000 more people are in work now than when the previous Government were ejected from office. That is the reality, and those are the facts. It is about time that Conservative Members recognised them.

Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Minister tell the House how much weight the Government put on surveys of business confidence when they forecast economic growth? Will the Minister confirm that, after 18 months of Labour in power, business confidence is

now at an 18-year low? Will he tell us whether he thinks that the 0.5 per cent. cut in interest rates will be enough to lift the business gloom?

Mr. Byers: The Government welcome the interest rate cut announced today by the Bank of England, which will be good news for businesses, consumers and home owners. We believe that the Bank has been able to take that decision only because of the tough measures that we have introduced to ensure that inflation is at the 2.5 per cent. target, and to cut last year's national deficit by £20 billion. Interestingly, a majority of people express confidence when asked specifically about their own business, whereas they express pessimism about the economy as a whole. It is an example of people listening to scaremongers, such as Conservative Members, who talk down our economy.

Mr. Francis Maude: Talking of realism, as opposed to the Government's astonishing complacency, has the right hon. Gentleman seen today's MORI poll of senior executives, showing not only that only 1 per cent. expect the economy to improve in the next year—whereas a staggering 89 per cent. expect it to worsen—but that a majority of them take a more pessimistic view of their own business prospects? Are all those people talking down the economy? When will Ministers stop talking down British business by attacking it? When will they abandon their complacency and reverse the burdens that they are piling on which threaten to make Britain's downturn the first and the worst in the western world, with 2,000 more job losses announced just this morning?

Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman talks about talking business down and placing burdens on business, but we are a Government who have cut corporation tax, from April 1999, to 30 per cent. From next April, we are cutting corporation tax for small businesses to 20 per cent. Those burdens were imposed on business by the Conservative Government. They are being lifted by this Government. That is why we have underlying strength in the economy, and can steer a course of stability. We shall continue to do that, not adopting the right hon. Gentleman's short-term approach, but planning in the long term for continued economic prosperity and stability.

Windfall Tax

Mr. Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on the mechanisms for the allocation of the proceeds of the windfall tax. [61747]

Ms Rosie Winterton: If he will make a statement on the use made of the proceeds of the windfall tax. [61754]

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What further plans he has for the proceeds of the windfall tax on the privatised utilities. [61763]

The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): The House will be pleased to know that the second instalment of the windfall tax has been paid in full, raising £5.2 billion. Some £2.6 billion of that has been allocated


to the welfare-to-work programme for 18 to 24-year-olds and £1.3 billion has been allocated to the new deal for schools.

Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that reply. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if the whingeing Liberals and the neanderthal Conservatives had had their way, there would have been no windfall tax, and therefore no new deal? Will he further confirm that, by April next year, 300,000 people will have benefited from the new deal, including 30,000 18 to 24-year-olds, who will be in work as a result? May I draw to his attention the regional discrepancies in take-up of the new deal? Will he try to remedy the problem of some people in London staying for a considerable period in the gateway?

Mr. Robinson: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The length of time in the gateway is one aspect that needs particular attention. The Employment Service is well aware of that. He is right to point out that the Conservatives oppose the windfall tax, the new deal for schools and the welfare-to-work programme. Of course, that is not true of all Conservatives. They might look at the wise words of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel), who made it clear on 4 December that he welcomed the new deal in his constituency, and referred to the great amount of good that it was doing for young people there.

Ms Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in areas such as South Yorkshire, the public utilities used to have a good track record on training, exceeding their requirements? Are the privatised utilities participating in the new deal by providing training opportunities? If not, what action will the Treasury take to encourage them to participate?

Mr. Robinson: In fairness, the utilities have played a full part in making the new deal possible. Beyond that, many of them have signed up and are participating in it, and providing training. Yorkshire Water has signed up and Yorkshire Electricity is already in meaningful discussions with the Employment Service. Instead of sniping from the sidelines, the Conservatives should make it clear why they are against our measures to provide jobs and training for youngsters and to make employment work.

Dr. Ladyman: Does my hon. Friend agree with a constituent who wrote to me this week, who certainly regards the windfall tax spending on the new deal as money well spent? It is entirely thanks to the new deal that the man, who is in his 40s, is back in full-time paid employment for the first time since 1994. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that we shall continue to extend the new deal, and that the remaining proceeds from the windfall tax will be used to improve its quality further, in particular to extend the gateway, which is key to the success of the new deal

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is correct. We have 28 pilot projects under way for the long-term unemployed. He referred to one constituent. He will welcome the news that the pilots are showing good signs of success throughout the country. We intend to build on them.

Mr. Tim Boswell: As the hon. Gentleman has apparently remained a Treasury Minister in the

12 months since I ceased to shadow him, despite appearances to the contrary, will he explain, as he was unable to do 12 months ago, how it has been possible to raise £5.6 billion from British industry without any apparent impact on employment in the industries concerned or on their investment programmes—or has he merely joined the Magic Circle?

Mr. Robinson: To start with, the hon. Gentleman has got the figure wrong—it is £5.2 billion. All the regulators for the industries signed up to it. Instead of carping around irrelevant points, why do not Opposition Members concentrate on what is happening in their constituencies, and work with the Employment Service agencies to make the deal a success? As they have opposed the scheme so vehemently throughout, the country will expose their hypocrisy on it.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: One of the objections to the new deal is that it does not provide enough money to help the older unemployed—those in their 30s, 40s, 50s and perhaps even early 60s. Will more money be made available for them, including unexpectedly retired former Ministers?

Mr. Robinson: The Opposition really have to make up their mind. Either they are in favour of the new deal and the £500 million that we have made available for the long-term unemployed, to whom I think the hon. Gentleman was referring, or they are not. If they are not, they should make it clear, but if they are, I should tell him that we are looking at the 28 pilots. If we can build on them, and if they prove successful—and the signs are that they are—we shall extend the scheme.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Paymaster General acknowledge that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has a significant point? The consumers who paid for the excess profits that have been taxed would have benefited had those profits been returned to them in lower prices or further investment. As he is answering this question, can he confirm that he is still in charge of the windfall tax programme and sorting out the problem faced by the poor pensioners who have suffered from the dividend changes that he introduced? He pledged to do something about it. Does he plan to do so, or has he been stripped of that responsibility?

Mr. Robinson: It is interesting that, typically, the Liberals voted against the windfall tax, yet continue to pretend that they are in favour of it, willing the end but not the means. That inconsistency is a hallmark of the Liberal party. For our part, we have raised £5.2 billion. We are putting it to good use, and it is recognised throughout the country that the programmes on which we have embarked are proving successful.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend will recall that the windfall tax is actually a Tory tax. It was imposed on the banks in the 1980s. Following the news that the NatWest bank made £1 billion profit in its first six months—through ripping off some of its customers, such as The Tanning Shop franchisees—I wonder whether the banks should now be subject to a windfall tax.

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend will understand if I do not follow him own that route of speculation. However,


he is quite right to say that the Tories introduced the windfall tax when they taxed the profits made by the banks due to high interest rates. Of course they are embarrassed by our success in these matters, as they presided over much higher rates of unemployment, for example. When the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was a Treasury Minister, we had interest rates above 10 per cent. for four years. That was his record. We are determined not to repeat those mistakes. Improving the basis of our training skills throughout the economy is a fundamental part of that.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman now knows that he is in charge of looking after taxpayers' money rather than taking it away from them. In the first year of the Labour Government, long-term unemployment was decreasing rapidly and when the new deal was first introduced long-term unemployment actually went up. The latest figures show that the long-term unemployed who disappeared from the register are not actually in jobs under the new deal, but are participating in the make-work schemes being provided under the new deal. In six months' time those people will be back on the register, and the Paymaster General will have wasted taxpayers' money again.

Mr. Robinson: In the months since we started the new deal for the young unemployed—the 18 to 24-year-olds—unemployment in that category has fallen by 27 per cent. We have only just got the 28 pilots for the long-term unemployed under way, but if they prove successful we shall see similar improvements in that group. Instead of carping and criticising, why do not the Opposition welcome the measures, and work with us to make them succeed?

Euro

Mr. Hugh Bayley: What initiatives the Treasury is taking to help United Kingdom businesses prepare for the possibility that the United Kingdom joins the euro. [61748]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government will be publishing an outline national changeover plan early next year as a first step in setting out the practical steps that would need to be followed if the United Kingdom decided to join the single currency.

Mr. Bayley: Does my hon. Friend recall that Conservative European policy more than doubled VAT from 8 to 17.5 per cent., extended the scope of VAT to include gas and electricity, and agreed to the abolition of duty-free, all in the name of European Union tax harmonisation? Does she agree that it is important that UK businesses prepare to use the euro, regardless of whether we join, and that the introduction of the euro has no bearing whatever on our resisting further EU tax harmonization?

Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with all my hon. Friend's points. I am sure that he will agree with me when I say how extraordinary it is that the Conservative party is no longer waiting and seeing, but has decided to be the anti-European party—it has turned its back on Europe and on the British national interest.

Sir Michael Spicer: As part of the process of preparing business for the possibility of our
entering European monetary union, will someone explain that our entry would mean massive new taxation, partly to compensate poor countries for the misery that they will suffer as a result of joining the euro?

Ms Hewitt: We hear again the authentic voice of the Conservative party—it is opposed to Europe and to Britain's continuing membership of the European Union. As more than half our trade is with the rest of the European Union, it is essential for British business that we assist it to prepare for the introduction of the euro next year.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Does my hon. Friend share my excitement about the coverage of European economic affairs in The Sunday Times, The Times and The Sun? Has she seen the marvellous articles that they have published showing how clothes, cars, computers and food are much cheaper in Europe than in Britain after 20 years of Tory rule? As the rate of VAT in Germany is 16 per cent., does she agree that British consumers would welcome the harmonisation of our VAT down to red Oskar levels?

Ms Hewitt: I am not sure that I share my hon. Friend's excitement, but he makes an extremely important point about the extent to which British consumers in many product markets are paying higher prices than consumers do in other parts of the European Union and, indeed, in the United States of America. In striking contrast to the previous Government, this Government are determined to strengthen our competition laws in the interests of the British consumer. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary set out last night, we have a clear position on taxation in the European Union, unlike the Conservative party, which has ceased defending the British national interest in the EU.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the hon. Lady assure the House that no public money, either from the European Union budget or from the Treasury, will be used to fund propaganda for the euro? In particular, will she confirm that the new parliamentary Liaison Committee, which is chaired by a Labour Back Bencher, will be used only to help businesses to prepare for a new foreign currency on 1 January and not to soften them up and persuade them that the United Kingdom should join the euro?

Ms Hewitt: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to our recent campaign to raise the awareness of small and medium businesses about the introduction of the euro, I hope that that is something that he will support. As for the cross-party Committee to which he refers, he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, in his letters of 10 November, said that the group will be designed
to act as a channel for the exchange of information and to develop cross-party awareness of the continuing preparations for the Euro.
I hope that, despite the anti-European stance of his party, he will agree that it is in the interests of British business and British citizens to be aware of the continuing preparations for the euro.

Ms Debra Shipley: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the initiatives taken by my colleagues


in the Dudley metropolitan borough—which includes my constituency—regarding the introduction of European measures. Will she also welcome the good work being done by the Dudley training and enterprise council and Dudley business link in helping businesses on all European issues? Will she allay the fears that any small businesses in my constituency may have, and state that we will support them?

Ms Hewitt: I am happy to welcome the work of Dudley council in helping local businesses to prepare for the introduction of the euro. It is extremely important that small and medium businesses which are trading with suppliers and buyers within the euro-zone are aware of the implications for them of the introduction of the euro on 1 January. I congratulate the council on the work that it is doing in assisting local businesses, and small businesses in her constituency and across the country can rely upon the Treasury to assist them in practical terms in taking advantage of the opportunities that the introduction of the euro will provide.

Stenbell Ltd.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: How much tax has been paid by Stenbell Ltd. in the last five years. [61749]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Byers): As has been the case under successive Governments, the law on taxpayer confidentiality prevents the Inland Revenue from disclosing any information relating to the tax affairs of any particular taxpayer.

Mr. Robathan: This is a matter of real public interest and, I suggest, of grave concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Is it not the case that the tax paid by Stenbell, together with the £500,000 of tax not paid by AGB, the connection with Hollis Industries, the implication of Robert Maxwell in both those companies and the claims of the Maxwell pensioners are part of a tangled web that must interest the Treasury—yet at the centre of the web is a Treasury Minister? Notwithstanding the Paymaster General's friends in high places and his holiday guests in Tuscany, does not the Minister consider that a Minister in the Paymaster General's position should have resigned long ago?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman makes allegations. The Paymaster General is a highly effective Minister, and I look forward to working with him for many months to come. The question that Conservative Members need to answer is why, in the Tory party's recently published accounts, there is a secret donation of £1 million which, we are told, was donated by a party connected to Michael Ashcroft, the Tory party treasurer. We know that Mr. Ashcroft has been a tax exile for a number of years, preferring to pay his tax in Belize rather than Britain. That is the question that the Conservatives must answer.
The Leader of the Opposition has said that he wants to lead a party with no secret donations. Why the secrecy in this case? Why has there been no disclosure? The time has come for the Conservative party to answer those questions.

Madam Speaker: Order. That does not relate to the question. I will take only questions which relate directly to the main question.

Mr. Francis Maude: The Paymaster General—who is, I understand, the owner of Stenbell

Ltd.—has been stripped of responsibility for taxation because of his own affection for placing his tax affairs offshore; he cannot deal with corporate matters because he is being investigated by the DTI under the Companies Acts; and he almost never appears in the House of Commons—except today, for his swansong.
He has been shown to have systematically concealed his business links with Robert Maxwell. Why do not the Government abandon—

Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that he should have a substantive motion on the Order Paper before he criticises a Member of this House. If he will restrict his supplementary question to what is on the Order Paper, I will hear it. Otherwise, I must ask him to resume his seat until he has a proper motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Maude: The Paymaster General is the subject of this question. Why do not the Government abandon the search for a face-saving exit for the Paymaster General, and simply sack him?

Mr. Byers: The shadow Chancellor can put two questions to the Treasury today, and it is interesting that he has chosen to use one of them for a deliberate personal attack on a Treasury Minister. I am sure that there are many other issues that members of the public would have thought he might raise. His misguided priorities all too often reveal the nature of the Conservative party. I think that he will come to regret the way in which he put his question. I am pleased to be working with my hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who is an effective Minister, and I am sure that I will continue to work with him for many months to come.

EU Withholding Tax

Mr. John Greenway: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the proposed EU withholding tax. [61750]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): We have carefully examined the draft directive on taxation of savings, and consulted the City about its possible impact on the markets. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that, in its present form, the directive is unacceptable.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for confirming what she said last night—that the EU withholding tax is unacceptable in its present form. In what form would a withholding tax be acceptable? Does she agree that any international action to protect UK interests, unless it is mounted on a global scale, will automatically mean the transfer of business and jobs not only from London but from all member states to America, Japan and Switzerland?

Dawn Primarolo: The Government have always made it clear that we are determined to protect the competitiveness of the European financial sector, and in particular the City of London. We favour—as, I hope, did the previous Government—effective international action against tax evasion. The solution that we prefer is the exchange of information, and the previous Government


were so keen on that that in 1988 they voted for a directive enshrining it. It was called the directive on capital movements.

Ms Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend will agree that the xenophobic tone of much media comment on European taxation matters is to be deplored. Does she also agree that, if a country is to proceed with economic and monetary union and complete monetary integration, a degree of fiscal integration follows, as night follows day? It is misleading the public to pretend that one can have monetary convergence with no effect on fiscal policy.

Dawn Primarolo: I am sorry that my hon. Friend missed the debate last night. I reiterate what I said then: monetary union does not equal harmonisation. It does not in the United States, and it will not in Europe. The Government have made it clear that harmonisation is not on the agenda for the foreseeable future.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Is the Financial Secretary aware that it is strongly believed in the financial services industry that the Government are preparing a sell-out on the withholding tax? Does she understand that, even if we get rid of the compulsory 20 per cent. savings tax, the alternative is just as bad? The compulsory provision of information to overseas tax authorities would have the same effect, driving business right out of the European Union.
Instead of giving vague assurances about protecting the national interest, as defined by the Government, will the Financial Secretary for a change announce that she will simply veto this damaging directive, which will not only destroy an important and successful British industry but put at risk the thousands of jobs that depend on it?

Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Gentleman may be having some difficulty with his hearing. I repeat that the exchange of information, which is the Government's preferred way to deal with that issue, is the way that we are proceeding in our negotiations. I repeat also that his Government agreed to a directive in 1988 that enshrined exchange of information. It was called the directive on capital movements. I know that the Tories like to forget quickly what they did in government, but the right hon. Gentleman's forecast did not happen then and will not happen in the future. This Government will defend the national interest and take decisions on the directive based on the national interest.

Stockbrokers (Regulation)

Mr. David Chaytor: What plans he has to improve the system of regulation of stockbrokers. [61751]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Byers): Soon after coming to office last May, the Government announced their plans to modernise the system of regulation for the financial services industry generally. A single body, the Financial Services Authority, has been established, which will be given statutory powers in the financial services and markets Bill which we will bring forward later in this Session.

Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. One of my constituents, a characteristic small

investor, is in dispute with a reputable firm of stockbrokers—I shall resist the temptation to name the firm—to the tune of some £200,000. That sum is in dispute because of incompetence, following an insider deal that went wrong, and the firm is now under investigation for insider dealing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the exploitation of small investors by stockbrokers, following the mis-selling of personal pensions and the mis-selling of additional voluntary contributions, is the third great financial services scandal of the Tory years? Will he assure the House that the Financial Services Authority will pay particular attention to the protection of small investors?

Mr. Byers: I sympathise with the difficulties that my hon. Friend's constituent has experienced. For the reasons that he has outlined, we felt that it was necessary to bring together the nine existing regulators into one body to regulate the financial services market. That body will have a single compensation scheme, which will help individuals who may have been subject to harmful treatment by stockbrokers or others involved in the financial services market. The aim of the new regime is to ensure that no individual, such as my hon. Friend's constituent, ever again has to suffer as a result of inappropriate conduct by people in the financial services market.

Skills Base

Mrs. Anne Campbell: What fiscal measures he has taken to encourage the development of skills in the work force. [61752]

The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): The £19 billion extra that the Government have found for education will lay the basis for the skills improvement that we need. Specifically, this year we are providing a further £100 million for information technology skills. Some £40 million of that will fund some 60 IT centres; £20 million will fund the provision of essential equipment for IT training; and a further £10 million will help to fund the university for industry.

Mrs. Campbell: I welcome the start-up funding that the Government have allocated to the university for industry, an exciting institution that will help to raise the skills of the unemployed and people who work in small businesses. If my hon. Friend has time, will he take a look at some of the software being developed by Cambridge Training and Development in my constituency? It has some innovative software to help adults to raise their levels of literacy and numeracy.

Mr. Robinson: I was in Cambridge this week with my hon. Friend, and was made aware of that interesting software package. That is an area that the university for industry will be anxious to develop further. Apart from what has already been made available, my hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that we will provide an extra £40 million next year to ensure that that exciting idea gets off the ground. All we are waiting for now is to hear that the Conservative Opposition oppose that, too.

Mr. Nigel Evans: What has the Minister to say about those who have manufacturing skills


but who have lost their jobs during the past 18 months as a result of the recession made in Downing street? Would he guide those people towards gaining different skills, or would he prefer them simply to advertise their availability for hire in the yellow pages?

Mr. Robinson: We need no lectures from the Opposition about manufacturing industry. During the previous Government's self-made recession, a million jobs were lost in manufacturing, and output dropped by 7 per cent. We do not face such a prospect now. The news of an interest rate reduction, which the Opposition have failed to welcome, is very good news for manufacturing.

Mr. Derek Foster: What response would my hon. Friend give to an economist who shares his name but who is no relation, and who works for the Institute for Public Policy Research, an organisation known to both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury? At the Select Committee on Education and Employment this week, Peter Robinson dismayed me by saying that there was no evidence of any return to companies for training. There was plenty of evidence that there is a return to individuals, but none of any return to companies. How does my hon. Friend respond to that?

Mr. Robinson: Peter Robinson is eponymous with my younger brother, but is no relation of my family. He is obviously out of touch with the manufacturing sector. Perhaps he was not invited to one of our seminars, but if he had attended one, he would have heard time after time from industrialists of the close link between training and both the skills and competitiveness of their companies.

Fiscal and Monetary Stability

Jacqui Smith: What plans he has to ensure fiscal and monetary stability. [61755]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Byers): We have put in place a new framework for monetary and fiscal policy and have taken tough action to deliver low inflation and sound public finances, both of which are essential for economic stability and sustainable growth.

Jacqui Smith: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that those policies will be sustained despite both lower world economic growth and the weasel words of the Opposition? In particular, can he confirm that the extra £40 billion of spending on schools and hospitals will be delivered despite moderated growth forecasts? Despite the fact that the Opposition want to reintroduce politics into the setting of interest rates, can my right hon. Friend reassure me that we shall maintain the independence of the Bank of England, which has brought such welcome news on interest rates today?

Mr. Byers: As I have already said, the Government welcome today's Bank of England decision to cut interest rates by 0.5 per cent. As the Bank said, the reason for the cut was a weakening in global economic activity. The tough decisions that the Government took to reduce the deficit by £20 billion, to give independence to the Bank

of England and to ensure that we hit the inflation target of 2.5 per cent. have enabled us to steer a course of economic stability. That is why we can guarantee £40 billion for our schools and hospitals over the next three years. It is a matter of regret that the official Opposition call that a spending spree; most people regard it as an investment in the future of our schools and hospitals.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Is the Minister aware of warnings given in the Palace of Westminster yesterday by Mr. George Soros about the potential for British economic instability resulting from shocks of sterling instability? Can he confirm that the inter-party committee that he is currently establishing will specifically consider British preparations for entry to economic and monetary union, should entry prove to be in our national interest?

Mr. Byers: The committee announced a few weeks ago by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is still subject to discussion among hon. Members, and we must await the outcome of those discussions before we know the details of its terms of reference. As for the evidence given yesterday by George Soros, on his own admission he has made some fundamental mistakes recently—he may have made one in his evidence to the Treasury Committee.

Yvette Cooper: Given that the framework for stability that the Government have put in place has led to interest rates falling from a peak of just over 7 per cent., compared to a previous peak of 15 per cent., will my right hon. Friend promise that he will not follow the advice of the deputy Leader of the Opposition to give away the Bank of England's independence and have the Chancellor, rather than the Governor of the Bank of England, taking decisions on interest rates?

Mr. Byers: The time has come for the Conservative Opposition to reveal their position on independence for the Bank of England. It is because we have given the Bank of England independence that long-term interest rates are now at their lowest level for some 35 years and that we have today received the welcome news from the Bank that interest rates are to be cut by a 0.5 per cent. It is because we will not play party politics with interest rates that we gave independence to the Bank of England. It is a matter of regret that the Conservatives apparently still want to have that control, which will operate only for narrow party advantage, not in the national interest.

Mr. Nick Gibb: Will the Chief Secretary explain why the National Audit Office was not asked to audit the economic assumptions used in the pre-Budget report? Will he also explain the discrepancy between the written answer that the Economic Secretary gave me, to the effect that there were no changes to the economic assumptions used, and the written answer that the Secretary of State for Social Security gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), to the effect that the forecasts for social security spending had been changed because of changes to the economic assumptions used? Which answer is the truth, and why was there no audit?

Mr. Byers: The truth is the answer that I gave yesterday evening in the debate on this issue: that the conventions have not been changed. The pre-Budget report used unemployment figures for September, which was the latest month for which they were available. Because there was no change, as the code for fiscal stability clearly states, there was no need for the NAO to be involved.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, whenever there is a recession, as sure as night follows day the worst-affected areas are those where unemployment is already very bad. Does he agree that that problem demands some intervention, as evidenced by the Deputy Prime Minister's idea for a coalfield task force, and that such intervention will need to be repeated in many ways if there is a downturn in the economy, so that in those areas where unemployment rears its ugly head we manage to get rid of at least most of it?
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that there is one sector of the economy where employment is not affected? I refer to the Tories' moonlighting jobs—more than 200 of them. Under the new Labour Government, the Tories have been gathering in jobs left, right and centre. The shadow Chancellor already has four, and the next Register of Members' Interests will show an increase. If all the firms involved start paying in euros, you can bet your bottom dollar the Tories will not resign their non-executive directorships.

Mr. Byers: As always, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I forgot to point out in my earlier contribution that, since the general election, not only has unemployment in the shadow Chancellor's seat fallen by 29 per cent., but he has gained four jobs himself. On the more serious point, my hon. Friend is right to highlight the important work of groups such as the coalfield task force, as well as the new deal for communities launched by the Deputy Prime Minister. We were elected as a Government who would work for all of our people, not the few. We intend to do just that, thus ensuring that we give new hope to the communities represented by my hon. Friend and me.

Manufacturing Employment

Mr. Robert Syms: What estimate he has made of the level of manufacturing employment in Britain in the current year and in the next two years. [61756]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): In line with the convention adopted by previous Administrations, the Government do not publish employment forecasts.

Mr. Syms: That is very sad. Given the—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. McNulty, you are not in a public meeting now. You have been making comments continually from a sedentary position throughout Question Time. They are unwanted and unnecessary.

Mr. Syms: Given the sad announcements of further redundancies today following a number of such announcements over the past several months, and with many workers facing unemployment and a hard Christmas, does the Minister not consider that, for workers, the Prime Minister's recent comments that economic stability is sexy was both insensitive and in very poor taste?

Ms Hewitt: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government—this applies to all Ministers—are extremely concerned about every job lost. That is why we are investing so much—£5 billion—in the new deal to counter unemployment, and why we have put in place a rapid response task force to deal with large-scale redundancies when they arise.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that since the general election employment has risen by 400,000—that is one more person in a job every two minutes. Business fears most of all a return to the boom and bust of the Conservative years, to which we are putting an end.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: May I assure my hon. Friend that the view of manufacturing employers in a manufacturing constituency such as Burnley is that the most serious threat to the future of manufacturing stability and jobs in manufacturing is the present attitude of the Opposition to Europe and to the euro? Will the Government continue to recognise the need for, and give support to, research and development, which is crucial if Britain is to remain at the sharp end of manufacturing and be able to retain jobs in manufacturing, not only for the next two years but for the years beyond?

Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is high time that Conservative Members stopped talking the economy down. However, given the competitive challenges that every sector of the economy faces in the modern world, and especially given the global conditions that we face at present, it is essential that we take every step possible to improve productivity. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer devoted the pre-Budget report particularly to a discussion of the measures that we can take to improve productivity through, for example, R and D, to which my hon. Friend referred.

Counterfeit Currency

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What estimate he has made of the amount of counterfeit currency in circulation. [61758]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): There are no such estimates, but the number of counterfeit coins and notes is believed to be a very small proportion of the total number of notes and coins in circulation.

Mr. Prentice: It is disappointing that there are no estimates. When the new euro notes and coins start circulating in continental Europe in January 2002, there is a danger that counterfeiters could have a field day. Is it not the case that notes and coins could be circulating in


the United Kingdom even though they are not legal tender? For example, Marks and Spencer and other retail outlets could be accepting notes and coins. What are the Government doing to familiarise people in the United Kingdom with the euro—what it looks and feels like—so that they can distinguish between counterfeit notes and coins and the genuine thing?

Ms Hewitt: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Royal Mint and the Bank of England keep the security and the design features of United Kingdom notes and coins under continuous review to keep them secure against counterfeiting. The European central bank, which is responsible for the notes and coins issued within the euro, is similarly taking measures and drawing upon the expertise of central banks to ensure that the wave of counterfeiting that my hon. Friend fears does not materialise.

Miss Anne McIntosh: 1 have in my possession a euro note from a Belgian bank. It looks remarkably similar to a gift token issued by Marks and Spencer. What satisfaction can the Minister give my constituents who hope to bring their euros back in perhaps the year 2003 after holidaying in Spain, for example, and spend them in their nearest Marks and Spencer store? What checks will there be to ensure that there is no confusion between the two different notes?

Ms Hewitt: As I have said, the European central bank and the central banks of the euro zone are taking steps to ensure that euro notes and coins are proof against counterfeiting. I am sure that Marks and Spencer, if it is not aware of the resemblance to which the hon. Lady has drawn the attention of the House, will be taking its own steps to ensure that no such confusion arises.

Education and Training

Fiona Mactaggart: What discussions he has had with representatives of business and industry about incentives to encourage them to contribute to education and training. [61759]

The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): In recent months we have been engaged in discussions with a wide range of representatives of business and industry during our seminars, one of which in particular focused on skills. A clear consensus has emerged between the Government and industry leaders on the importance of skills to the economy, and we are working out a joint programme.

Fiona Mactaggart: Several companies in my constituency were excited by the Chancellor's statement in his pre-Budget report that, as an incentive to businesses to offer expertise and management help to schools and colleges, businesses will be allowed to claim tax relief when they second staff to schools and colleges. All those companies are involved in formal and informal ways in supporting education in Slough. They are anxious to ensure that they are consulted about ways to make the proposal work before it is implemented. If it is based on real experience, the results could be excellent; if not, they could be rather poor.

Mr. Robinson: I am pleased that my hon. Friend welcomes the initiative. We are keen to bring industry and schools closer together. Tax relief for companies that second high-level staff to schools is a good idea in itself. I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be the fullest consultation on that, as there has been on all other matters that involve industry.

Smoking

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Today I present to the House our White Paper on tobacco which is entitled "Smoking Kills". That is a fact, and it has been known for years. That is why a lot of adults gave up smoking, but the number of adults who smoke has stopped falling. Worse still, the number of children who smoke is going up, with more girls than boys taking up the deadly habit.
It is a deadly habit. Out of 1,000 20-year-olds who smoke regularly, one will be murdered, six will die in road accidents, 250 will die in middle age from smoking and a further 250 will be killed by smoking later in life. Smoking causes 84 per cent. of deaths from lung cancer and 83 per cent. of deaths from other lung diseases such as bronchitis. It causes not just lung cancer, but cancer of the mouth, the larynx, the oesophagus, the bladder, the kidneys, the stomach and the pancreas. It causes one in seven deaths from heart disease. Smoking is very high among people who are severely mentally ill.
Smoking is now the principal avoidable cause of premature deaths in Britain. It hits the worst-off people hardest of all, and it is one of the principal causes of the health gap that leads to poorer people being ill more often and dying sooner. It harms people who do not smoke; smoking harms babies in the womb.
All those are good reasons why the Government are so determined to turn things round. Unless we tackle smoking, we cannot possibly achieve the reductions that everyone wants to see in deaths and illness from cancer and heart disease.
Unless we reduce smoking, we cannot reduce the inequalities in health that bear down most on the worst-off. We want to help existing smokers to quit the habit and help children and young people not to get addicted in the first place.
We face an uphill struggle because the tobacco companies are committed to doing everything they can to promote the sale of cigarettes. They have to keep recruiting new smokers to make up for the 120,000 of their loyal customers whom they kill off every year.
Most smokers take up the habit when they are children or young people. Few people start smoking once they are grown up. For years, the tobacco industry has poured millions into highly sophisticated advertising campaigns. People of all ages, including children, have been exposed to clever and eye-catching advertising material. All that will now change. Tobacco advertising is going to end, and it is going to end soon.
The White Paper spells out the measures that we will take, which will be targeted on children to protect them from being exposed to tobacco promotions. It will require sustained effort over a long period. Some benefits will not show up for decades, but unless we act now they will never show up. We will also be trying to help the seven out of 10 smokers who want to quit the habit. All that calls for a concerted plan of action, and that is what the White Paper outlines.
From 1989 until the last general election, the previous Government helped to block all European efforts to ban tobacco advertising and sponsorship. We changed that. We put Britain's full weight into getting a European

directive through, and we succeeded. I pay tribute to the negotiating skills and powers of persuasion of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health in achieving that.
As a result, a Europe-wide anti-smoking framework is in place. In this parliamentary Session, we propose to end tobacco advertising on billboards and in the printed media. Most tobacco sponsorship will end by 2003. Formula One motor racing, as a global event, may qualify for exemption until 2006 if—and only if—tobacco sponsorship funding and advertising are already being reduced.
The European directive is intended to keep to a minimum tobacco advertising in shops, and that will be fully applied in Britain through the law. The tobacco advertising ban will be backed up by an anti-smoking campaign. Over the next three years, we will put £50 million into an anti-smoking campaign. We want to make sure that children and young people no longer fall into the trap of seeing smoking as cool and a passport to adulthood.
We have negotiated with representatives of the hospitality industry a code of conduct for reducing smoking in public places. For a long time it has been illegal to sell cigarettes to children under 16. That law is frequently broken, so we are taking action to increase compliance by shopkeepers, and to promote more effective action by trading standards officers. Some individual shopkeepers and others knowingly and repeatedly flout that law. To deal with repeated offenders, we propose to introduce a new criminal offence, and we are looking at the practicalities of such a measure.
Following discussions with my officials, the National Association of Cigarette Machine Operators is issuing new rules on the siting and operation of cigarette vending machines, to make them inaccessible to children. We have also encouraged the companies that sell age-restricted goods such as alcohol, cigarettes and fireworks to develop an industry-wide proof of age card.
The package of measures is a tobacco advertising ban; a £50 million anti-smoking campaign; a crackdown on sales to children; a new criminal offence for repeated sales to children; new restrictions on vending machines; and the proof of age card. That package should make a real impact on the illegal sales of tobacco to children.
We must also consider those who are smoking already. Every 10 years, more than 1 million British people are killed by smoking. Most of the millions who will be killed by tobacco over the next few decades are already adult smokers. Most smokers say they want to stop, and they are the people we particularly want to help. If they keep on smoking, there is a 50:50 risk that they will eventually be killed by their habit, but if they stop smoking before they become ill, they will avoid most of the extra risk of death. It is really worth while for people to quit smoking.
As part of our effort to help those seven out of 10 adult smokers who want to quit, we are investing up to £60 million in the first ever comprehensive national health service scheme to help them to give up their addiction. That will involve all health professionals—midwives, health visitors, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and dentists—taking every appropriate opportunity to counsel patients to give up smoking.
That effort will be particularly targeted on smokers living in those deprived areas that have been chosen as health action zones. We shall encourage the use of


nicotine replacement therapy, especially targeted on health action zones where free NRT products will be available for the worst off. Health improvement programmes in every part of the country will be expected to address the need to reduce smoking, particularly in the worst-off areas.
As part of the drive to reduce tobacco consumption, the Government raised tobacco duties by just over 5 per cent. in December last year, and again this year. Those and other measures set out in the White Paper amount to a formidable plan of action to stop children taking up smoking and to help existing smokers to quit. To achieve that, we shall need to counter the efforts of the tobacco companies. Evidence shows that, for most of the past 20 years, they have been planning to counter the loss of sales that might follow an advertising ban. That time has now arrived, so we can be assured that they will be well prepared. I am certain that, as I speak, executives in the tobacco industry are planning their strategy to keep up tobacco sales.
We must get ahead of the game, which is all the more reason why everyone who cares about the health of the nation should work together to support this strategy. I am confident that everyone who cares about the nation's health will do that.

Mr. Alan Duncan: I have never been a smoker and, personally, I dislike it. The Opposition welcome any sensible measures that reduce smoking, especially among the young. However, I have concerns and suspicions about some of the methods that the Secretary of State has outlined in today's much delayed White Paper.
The heavy emphasis on advertising is questionable. We have always known that the White Paper would not be a matter of principle, because the Labour party was prepared to sell its principles for £1 million. The Government believe that advertising is all right so long as it appears at speeds in excess of 150 mph.
The White Paper is largely about implementing a European Union directive. However, if Germany's challenge to the directive's validity is successful, the Government will be in a frightful mess.

Mr. Dobson: It is a German Government now.

Mr. Duncan: The Secretary of State may say that, but the way things are going with his party, it probably will be.
What is the latest position on that legal challenge, and when is a final decision likely to be made? Does the Secretary of State agree that, if brands are prevented from competing through advertising, they will instead compete more actively through price? The measures will also prevent advertising that encourages smokers to switch to less harmful brands, one hopes as a step towards giving up completely. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that that sort of detrimental effect has been considered, and explain how those fears will not prove justified? Will he reconfirm that the advertising measures will allow genuine brand diversification companies to continue to advertise their non-tobacco products?
The Opposition fully support a voluntary proof-of-age scheme. Such voluntary measures will have the greatest impact on reducing smoking with the minimum of bossiness. We note what the Secretary of Stage said about

the practicalities of introducing a new criminal offence and we shall look at that very closely, to ensure that it does not accidentally give rise to injustice.
It is revealing that nicotine patches are to be made available to those on low incomes. We understand that the incidence of smoking-related diseases is particularly pernicious among those on low incomes, so we can see what the Government are trying to do. However, it goes against everything that the Labour party has ever said about the health service. The Government are introducing a two-tier system of health service provision. They are introducing more of the rationing which they say does not exist. Is it not the case that making a nicotine patch available only to those on low incomes amounts to introducing a means test for health care? What is the relationship between nicotine patch manufacturers that have given money to the Labour party and those who will supply patches under this scheme?
If the European Court finds the directive illegal, will the Government seek to reintroduce it in United Kingdom legislation? Will the Secretary of State define the targets by which we can judge this policy's success or failure? What do the Government estimate the level of consumption among adults will be following the implementation of the measures? By how much will the White Paper reduce smoking? What will be the cost of nicotine patches to our health service under the means-tested proposals? How will that be offset by the reduced cost of treating smoking-related diseases set against the loss of tax revenues should smokers give up smoking?
We have waited a long time for this White Paper. We know that the Government's principles on this issue were for sale. We welcome any sensible moves to reduce smoking, especially among the young. The Secretary of State has watered down his original commitments. We look forward to reducing smoking in this country by persuasion rather than by bossiness, and by concentrating our attention on the young.

Mr. Dobson: It takes the biscuit when members of the Tory party who supported the previous Government talk about delays in the introduction of measures to tackle smoking. For 18 years they did virtually nothing, and for eight years they did everything they could to get help in cash or kind from the tobacco companies, and to block the European directive. They tried to prevent it at every turn, and it was only when we got into power and withdrew from the blocking minority, and persuaded other members of that minority to join us, that we got the European directive.
The Tories should make up their minds. Are they in favour of the directive or against it? We are confident that the directive is valid. It is strange that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who is one of the fanatical anti-marketeers, is now praying in aid—and no doubt in hope—the possibility that the German Government's challenge to the legality of the directive will be successful. We are satisfied about its legality. Most of the hon. Gentleman's comments bore a marked resemblance to the briefing drawn up over a long period by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association.
The hon. Gentleman was concerned about brand diversification. That practice was invented by the tobacco industry when it first contemplated the prospect of an


advertising ban. It is all right if they diversify their brands, but we will not allow advertising that, in effect, uses a shirt or a pair of shoes to promote cigarette sales. The hon. Gentleman talked about injustice and about the sleazy people who, for profit, sell cigarettes time and again to children who are too young to smoke. The biggest injustice is the injustice done to children. Those people sell cigarettes to children knowing that half of them will die from smoking those cigarettes.
The hon. Gentleman is apparently as ignorant about nicotine patches as he is about everything else. Nicotine patches are available over the counter, not on prescription. We intend to provide patches in limited circumstances to the most deprived people in the most deprived areas as part of a course of treatment to help them cure their addiction.
The hon. Gentleman has been spreading slurs about the Novartis company, which is a reputable, international drug company. He has suggested that, because it sponsored an event at a Labour party conference, it has bought the Labour party. We also received money from Tate and Lyle, so presumably he thinks that that is why patients in hospitals get sugar in their tea. Perhaps he thinks that we should withdraw the use of the Novartis drug, cyclosporin, which is given to people who have had organ transplants, or Voltarol, which is used extensively for people suffering from arthritis. The hon. Gentleman's charge is absurd—as absurd as everything else that he has done.
Our hope and intention is that, by 2010—for it will take a long time—1.5 million fewer people will be smoking. I hope that our proposed measures will be even more successful, but that is an ambitious target, given that the number of adults who smoke has begun to rise, and has been seriously augmented by the large number of children who took up smoking while an idle, feckless Government did nothing about it.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Many organisations that are concerned about public health will welcome both the statement and the White Paper, as will the many thousands of people who work in the health service and must deal every day with the victims of tobacco addiction. I especially welcome the plan of action to cure nicotine addiction, which has been known about for 40 years but whose existence has been consistently denied. At long last, we have a Government who will act in this regard.
In view of what was said by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), may I ask whether the White Paper contains any measures that could cure the Tory party of its addiction to the tobacco companies?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I doubt it.

Mr. Dobson: I agree with my hon. Friend.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on all that he has done over the years to promote efforts to reduce the number of smokers in this country. It should be remembered—this needs to be repeated whenever we hear propaganda from the tobacco companies, either directly or through their hired hands—that, until very recently, those companies denied that

tobacco smoking caused lung cancer, and that even more recently they have denied that it is addictive. Both assertions were plain, downright lies. The tobacco companies knew that they were lies when they uttered and publicised them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Liberal Democrats approve of the direction of Government policy. It makes a welcome change from the 18 years of hypocrisy during which the Tory party was persistently on the side of the tobacco industry, as a result of which hundreds of thousands of people paid the ultimate price.
We agree with the Government that smoking must be deglamourised. Given that his Department said this morning that those who sell cigarettes are effectively child killers, does the Secretary of State not think it inconsistent, if we are to have secondary legislation this year to ban billboard and other advertising, not to ensure that it comes into effect this year? According to the White Paper, it will come into effect as soon as is practicable, but five years is far too long. If we are to have legislation this year—given the formula one fiasco last year, and the lesson that the Government have learnt from it—can we not have legislation at the same time to ban tobacco sponsorship?
If we are really keen to stop young people smoking, will the Secretary of State revise the targets for reducing smoking among young people? A reduction from 13 per cent. to 9 per cent. over 12 years is hardly a tough target; the right hon. Gentleman really ought to go further and faster.
If the Government share the view that every citizen should have the right to be free from smoke in every public place, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, if the leisure industry does not agree to such arrangements, it too will be told that legislation may be introduced to require it to provide non-smoking alternative venues?
At home, the Government are committed to stopping 120,000 deaths a year from smoking. Will there be the same commitment abroad to combating the activities of the international tobacco companies, which are determined to recruit many people to lifelong addiction by using what is, in fact, the ultimate weapon of personal self-destruction?

Mr. Dobson: I suppose that I should thank the hon. Gentleman for his somewhat limited welcome for our proposal. All I can say is that it has been almost unreservedly welcomed by the Cancer Research Campaign, the British Heart Foundation and Action on Smoking and Health. We have met virtually every one of their requirements.
As for the timing of the intended measures, the hon. Gentleman should wait to see the regulations that we will introduce. As for similar efforts overseas, we support whole-heartedly the initiative that Dr. Brundtland has launched at the World Health Organisation to put together an international effort to restrain the international efforts of tobacco companies.

Mr. Joe Ashton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent report, but there was one word that he did not mention: pubs. Is he aware that public houses are the only place where members of the public gather where there are no no-smoking areas?


Despite ten-minute Bills being passed by the House and constant requests to the breweries, they adamantly refuse to introduce no-smoking areas.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure in the legislation that breweries do not get a licence to sell alcohol from a local authority without providing no-smoking areas in their public houses? Will he make a start on this House, because the conditions in the Stranger's Bar are absolutely dreadful? On December nights, the door must be held wide open because the staff can hardly breathe and the extractor fans do not work. Despite many others making requests, a no-smoking area in the Tea Room is still not available. In many parts of this House, people are entitled to have a segregated no-smoking area, but despite the complaints we make, it never happens.

Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for our proposals. We have been having serious negotiations with the hospitality industry and those who are responsible for licensed premises. They are introducing a new code of conduct, which—

Mr. Ashton: We have heard that 10 times before.

Mr. Dobson: I know, but let me finish. We have made it clear that, if the code of conduct does not deliver what those companies are promising, we will have to resort to legislation. We would, however, rather have the enthusiastic support of people in the licensed trade, restaurants and hotels. Many of them are gradually realising, as did the airlines, bus companies and train companies, that most people would rather be in a smoke-free area.
It is rather odd that, as far as I know, smoking has always been banned in the Chamber, but it was not banned by us. No one other than hon. Members is responsible for the rules in other parts of the House. I would be happy to see it setting an example.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: People will welcome the Secretary of State's analysis that it is vital to get young people who take up smoking to understand that they are doing what children do, not what adults take up. Will he give more prominence to the work of Dr. Malcolm Green and his colleagues at the British Lung Foundation, because, as well as hearts, lungs matter? Sometimes that is overlooked.
While considering where bans on smoking could be made, can we look forward to powers for taxi drivers to ban smoking in their cabs, which they have not, up to now, been able to do?
Will the Secretary of State continue to be aware that the ban on promotion might make a difference of between 1 and 7 per cent? The target should be to achieve the same level of reduction as was achieved 10 years ago on drink driving. The number of occasions when young men would drink and drive was cut by two thirds in two years, with no change of law or in sentencing. It was done effectively through the youth media, so, instead of Ministers saying that things are cool or uncool, it is far more useful for disc jockeys and others to talk about the dangers of smoking on their news and current affairs programmes. That would be more effective than a public service or health message.

Mr. Dobson: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about trying to get a change of view, a change of culture,

among the people concerned. As I always say, he deserves some congratulation on his contribution to changing public attitudes towards drink driving. That change in attitude was backed by the law—perhaps set on by the law—but, above all, habits were altered by a change in attitude. That is what we are trying to bring about. Therefore, I am prepared to consider all forms of advertising to try to catch the attention of young people.
It is sometimes suggested that young people understand the dangers that smoking poses to health, but there may be some evidence that many of them do not. As the dangers of smoking have been advertised in the adult world for the past 10 years, we tend to think that young people are aware of them, and that efforts have not been targeted on them. However, evidence from the United States, for example, shows that the best way of turning young people off smoking is by portraying accurately those who run the companies as a set of grasping people who, for the sake of profit, are willing to murder people.

Dr. Ian Gibson: It has indeed been an exciting week for cancer research, starting with work by British researchers on cervical tests that was funded by the Cancer Research Campaign and that will, over the next few years, save women's lives. My right hon. Friend fully supported that work. The week is nearing its end with today's announcement on cancer prevention. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it ill befits an Opposition to take seats on tobacco company boards and to take day trips to regattas and other United Kingdom events sponsored by the tobacco industry when that industry makes millions of pounds in profit and, as he said, kills our people? Does he agree that we should be as ruthless with tobacco companies' profits as those companies have been with their customers?

Mr. Dobson: I have always been rather reluctant to get into upbraiding anyone for their personal habits, and I shall not start now. However, I object to the habits of the tobacco companies' highly paid executives, who spend their time promoting something that they know will kill half of those who use it.

Mr. Eric Forth: Has the Secretary of State made any estimate of the tax revenue loss that would occur should he achieve anything like his stated target of 1.5 million fewer smokers by 2010? If so, will he tell us how he or his Treasury colleagues propose replacing that lost tax revenue, or what Government expenditure cuts would be necessitated by such a loss?

Mr. Dobson: The present Government, including the present Chancellor, support the policies that I have outlined today. In each successive Budget we intend to increase the price of cigarettes above the rate of inflation. If that action eventually has an impact on tax income, we shall address that problem when it arises. The sooner the problem arises and the greater it is, the better off the country will be.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I welcome the statement as a great step forward in trying to reduce the number of young people taking up smoking. However, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what he will do to monitor the diversionary activities in which the tobacco companies are involved? I am concerned


about their promotional activities at night clubs and other venues frequented by young people. I had direct experience of those activities when my daughter came home with promotional material designed not only to persuade her to smoke but to recruit her friends to do so. Will he take action to stop such activity?

Mr. Dobson: I am glad to say that all those matters are covered by the directive. The dishing out of promotional literature in night clubs—or youth clubs—will be banned, as will the issuing of free cigarettes, free sunglasses and all the other things that the tobacco companies have been using to promote the sale of cigarettes among young people. All those activities are covered by the directive which Conservative Members obstructed for the best part of 10 years, and which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health negotiated through the maze of European structures.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I am a non-smoker, although I have to confess that I have taken pleasure in watching Benson and Hedges cricket—a game to which I am addicted. Historically, when does the Secretary of State believe that tobacco companies embarked on brand advertising? More importantly for the future, given that law enforcement officers believe that the drugs trade is now a significant and measurable element in world gross domestic product—although, obviously, without advertising—what does the White Paper forecast the fall in tobacco consumption will be over the next decade?

Mr. Dobson: We have targets rather than forecasts. The Government are putting an extra £35 million into stepping up the effort to reduce alcohol and tobacco smuggling. It is clear that the market that has been created is being supplied on the cheap by all sorts of dubious traders. Interestingly, the tobacco companies, which claim to be disturbed by the problem, do not seem able to cut off the supply.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Although my party welcomes any measure to reduce smoking, particularly among young children, I fear that the proposals will place a great responsibility on organisations such as the Tobacco Alliance—a group of responsible small shopkeepers who sell cigarettes within the law, but are being taxed at 5 per cent. per year, to the advantage of the bootleggers whom the Secretary of State deprecates. What can the Secretary of State do about the £3 billion of trade involved? Has he been to the coast of France and Belgium to see the extent of the trade? There is no control over it. I am told that 80 per cent. of the trade is carried out north of the Watford Gap, so it is not peculiar to coastal regions. Unless the Secretary of State tackles that, he might as well forget about his proposals, which, I repeat, we welcome.

Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for our proposals. We take smuggling seriously. I understand that the loss of revenue is about £1 billion—which may interest those who are bothered about revenue lost to the Government. The Conservatives did nothing about that when they were in office. We are putting more

effort into attempting to counter smuggling, although I have not been to the coast of France and Belgium to check the situation. The tobacco companies must bear some of the responsibility, because their products are being smuggled. If they wanted to trace them to where they came from with markings on the packets, they could do so.

Mr. Derek Foster: I should declare an interest, although it is not a registerable one. There is a Rothmans factory in Spennymoor in my constituency employing 550 people. It is a good company that plays a full part in the life of the community. It is highly regarded by its employees and has a good relationship with the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union. My other interest in the issue is that my father died at the age of 51 from emphysema, probably caused by smoking Woodbines, which were popular among the working class of his generation.
My right hon. Friend is not making a pitch for the votes of the 15 million smokers, who give £11 billion to the tax man—considerably more than they cost the health service. Nevertheless, I wholly welcome the report. Will he work with me and the Tobacco Workers Alliance to ensure that, if the jobs of my 550 constituents in an area of high unemployment disappear through the activities of my party, we shall ensure that there are other jobs for them to go to?

Mr. Dobson: I know about the death of my right hon. Friend's father. I can confirm that representatives of the tobacco workers have been consulted throughout the process, and will continue to be consulted.
It is worth noting that, in the previous 18 years, the number of people employed in the tobacco industry fell from 37,000 to 9,000, largely as a result of increased automation of the processes. That has been the principal cause of job losses, which have proceeded apace. As the tobacco company bosses are concentrating so hard on brand diversification, perhaps they might pay a little attention to diversifying the job opportunities of their employees. I do not think that we will upset most smokers by trying to help them give up smoking, as all the surveys show that seven out of 10 smokers would like to give up, but unfortunately they are addicted.

Dr. Peter Brand: First, I welcome the emphasis placed on stopping children and young people starting to smoke in the first place.
Secondly, I am disappointed by the help that is being offered to the seven out of 10 who want to stop smoking, and who probably express that wish 10 or 20 times a day. People such as myself—I am addicted to my pipe—require consistent help to give up the pernicious habit. There is a great deal of evidence that people need support for at least six to 12 weeks. The Government are missing an opportunity by not offering people a supply of Nicorette as a condition of attendance at a clinic, as that would encourage people to turn up and to be successful in their attempts to stop smoking. A week's supply is neither here nor there and will not help anyone to make a real effort. Will the Secretary of State look at the results of the pilot project, and extend it when it is seen to be cost-effective?

Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. Although he is not a lawyer, he is probably


more learned on this subject, given his medical background. I hope that he will not be too disappointed by our proposals. As I said, we want a concerted effort by the national health service, so that the medical, nursing, midwifery and pharmacy professions work in the same direction and take every opportunity to help. We intend to start by targeting effort on the worst-off people in the poorest areas, who almost automatically have a high incidence of smoking compared with well-off people in prosperous areas.
As part of their treatment, some people will be offered free patches for a week or perhaps longer. I understand that the patches cost £15 a week over the counter. Most smokers spend more than that on smoking, so if they are given some support, get to know how it feels to use the patches and benefit from them, and provided that clinical support continues, we hope that they will think it a bargain to spend a bit less on patches than they were spending on the cigarettes that were harming them.

Dr. Howard Stoate: May I add my congratulations and those of the vast majority of my general practitioner colleagues to my right hon. Friend? I have been watching the clock, and my calculations are that between 10 and 12 people have died in Britain from smoking since the beginning of his statement. Therefore, about 400 people a day need to be recruited to start smoking just to make up those numbers. How can we change the culture among young people from the idea that smoking is somehow glamorous, so that they consider it dangerous? Rather than cracking down on smoking, we need to show people the damage that it causes and that it is in their best interests if they never take it up in the first place.

Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. and medical Friend for his welcome. We are trying to learn from campaigns in other parts of the world in an effort to reduce the number of children who are taking up smoking. However, it is a cultural matter, so we cannot simply take something off the peg in Massachusetts or California and assume that it will work in Scunthorpe or Surrey. We need to address what motivates and influences young people in our country. We have a substantial sum of money to do that, and we are prepared to contemplate almost any form of advertising and advocacy provided that we are convinced that it will work.

Mr. Barron: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I take points of order after statements.

Business of the House

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.

MONDAY 14 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill.

TUESDAY 15 DECEMBER—Until 7 o'clock, conclusion of Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill.

Debate on the common fisheries policy on a Government motion.

Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

WEDNESDAY 16 DECEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three-hour pre-recess debate.

Motion to approve the Modernisation Committee's report on the parliamentary calendar and sessional orders.

THURSDAY 17 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Scottish Enterprise Bill.

The provisional business for the first week back after the Christmas recess will be as follows:

MONDAY 11 JANUARY—Second reading of the Rating (Valuation) Bill.

TUESDAY 12 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Local Government Bill.

WEDNESDAY 13 JANUARY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Opposition day [2nd Allotted Day].

There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats, the subject to be announced.

THURSDAY 14 JANUARY—Motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the Official Report.

FRIDAY 15 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting.

[Thursday 14 January:

Motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the Official Report. Relevant Reports:
NHS Supplies in England HC349 11 December 1997 Cm 3880
Health and Safety in NHS Acute Hospital Trusts in England HC350 13 December 1997 Cm 3880
South and West Regional Health Authority: the disposal of SWIFT HC358 18 December 1997 Cm 3880
MOD: Management of Utilities HC359 19 December 1997 Cm 3880
Coronary Heart Disease in Northern Ireland HC381 14 January 1998 Cm 3893
Department of the Environment (NI) Control of Belfast Action Teams' Expenditure HC382 15 January 1998 Cm 3893
Resignation of the Chief Executive of English Heritage HC392 18th January 1998 Cm 3894
Governance and Management of Overseas Courses at the Swansea Institute of Higher Education HC393 18 January 1998 Cm 3894


Property Services in English Occupied Royal Palaces: Responsibilities for Royal Household Remuneration and the Provision of Accommodation HC94 17 December 1997 Cm 3936
Her Majesty's Stationery Office: Trade with Uzbekistan and 1995 Trading Fund Accounts HC405 21 January 1998 Cm 3894
MAFF: Tackling Common Agricultural Policy Irregularities HC406 22 January 1998 Cm 3894
ODA: Irregularities in the Encashment of Pension Payments in Amman, Jordan HC407 23 January 1998 Cm 3894.
Criminal Legal Aid Means Testing in the Magistrates' Courts HC416 6 February 1998 Cm 3936
HM Customs and Excise: The Seizure of Drug Traffickers' Assets HC417 29 January 1998 Cm 3936
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority: Sale of Facilities Services Division HC418 30 January 1998 Cm 3936
HM Customs & Excise: Appropriation Account Matters 1995–96 HC424 4 February 1998 Cm 3936
Waltham Forest Housing Action Trust: Progress in Regenerating Housing Estates HC425 18 February 1998 Cm 3936
The Department of Trade and Industry Redundancy Payment Service: The Management of Recovery of Debt HC426 11 February 1998 Cm 3936
Aid to Indonesia HC436 12 February 1998 Cm 3936
Motability HC444 15 February 1998 Cm 3936
Child Support Agency: Client Funds Account 1996–97 HC313 11 March 1998 Cm 3955
Excess Vote 1996–97: (Northern Ireland) Department of Education (Vote 2) Teachers' Superannuation HC592 12 March 1998
Excess Votes 1996–97: Ministry of Defence (Class 1: Votes 1, 2 and 3) HC593 12 March 1998
Department for Education and Employment: Remploy Limited HC339 18 March 1998 Cm 3955
Highlands & Islands Enterprise: Value for Money Review of Performance Measurement HC325 25 March 1998 Cm 3955
Vacant Office Property 395 1 April 1998 Cm 3973
Measures to Combat Housing Benefit Fraud HC366 26 March 1998 Cm 3955
Charity Commission: Regulation and Support of Charities HC408 2 April 1998 Cm 3973
HM Customs and Excise: Checking Large-Traders' VAT Liability HC445 5 April 1998 Cm 3973
The Prison Service: Prison Catering HC419 8 April 1998 Cm 3973
Inland Revenue: Employer Compliance Reviews HC357 3 May 1998 Cm 4004
NHS Scotland: Cataract Surgery in Scotland HC546 7 May 1998 Cm 4004
Crown Prosecution Service HC526 10 May 1998 Cm 4004
FCO: Fraud at Amman Embassy HC553 13 May 1998 Cm 4004
The Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors HC729 17 May 1998 Cm 4004
OFWAT: Regulation of Water Industry HC483 20 May 1998 Cm 4004
FCO: Contingent Liabilities in the Dependent Territories HC435 21 May 1998 Cm 4004
Northern Ireland: The Industrial Research and Technology Unit HC429 24 May 1998 Cm 4015
Protecting Environmentally Sensitive Areas HC513 3 June 1998 Cm 4021
The Management of Building Projects at English Higher Education Institutions HC558 4 June 1998 Cm 4021
The Construction of the Southampton Oceanography Centre HC608 17 June 1998 Cm 4055
The Skye Bridge HC348 21 June 1998 Cm 4041

The Privatisation of Belfast International Airport HC427 24 June 1998 Cm 4060
Northern Ireland Social Security Agency: The Administration of Disability Living Allowance HC527 25 June 1998 Cm 4060
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme HC6 13 27 June 1998 Cm 4055
The Contract to Develop and Update the Replacement National Insurance Recording System HC472 1 July 1998 Cm 4041
The Private Finance Initiative: The First Four Design, Build, Finance and Operate Roads Contracts HC580 2 July 1998 Cm 4041
MOD: Sale of the Married Quarters Estate HC518 8 July 1998 Cm 4055
The Sale of the Stationery Office HC599 9 July 1998 Cm 4055
The Management of Sickness Absence in the Metropolitan Police Service HC594 15 July 1998 Cm 4055
Ministry of Defence Appropriation Accounts 1996–97 HC671 16 July 1998 Cm 1055
Intervention Board Executive Agency: Qualification of Appropriation Account 1996–97 18 July 1998 Cm 4055
Appropriation Account 1996–97 Class V, Vote 7: Passenger Rail Services HC625 22 July 1998 Cm 4055
HM Customs and Excise: Matters on the 1996–97 Accounts HC7I7 23 July 1998 Cm 4055
Inland Revenue: The Monitoring and Control of Tax Exemptions for Charities HC728 24 July 1998 Cm 4055
Appropriation Accounts 1996–97 Class IX: Department for Education and Employment (Overpayments to Training and Enterprise Councils) HC704 25 July 1998 Cm 4055
The PFI Contracts for Bridgend and Fazakerley Prisons HC499 29 July 1998 Cm 4041
Appropriation Accounts 1996–97 Class XII, Vote 1: (Administered Social Security Benefits and Other Payments) HC570 30 July 1998 Cm 4069
HM Coastguard: HM Coastguard: Civil Maritime Search and Rescue HC741 31 July 1998 Cm 4069
The Sale of AEA Technology HC749 5 August 1998 Cm 4069
Getting Value for Money in Privatisations HC992 3 September 1998 Cm 4075
The Purchase of the Read Codes and the Management of the NHS Centre for Coding and Classification HC657 6 August 1998 Cm 4069
The Management of Growth in the English Further Education Sector HC 665 7 August 1998 Cm 4069
Countering Anti-Competitive Behaviour in the Telecommunications Industry HC842 12 August 1998 Cm 4069
Privatisation of the Rolling Stock Leasing Companies HC782 9 August 1998 Cm 4069
Managing the Millennium Threat HC816 19 August 1998 Cm 4069
HM Treasury: Resource Accounting and Resource-Based Supply HC731 13 August 1998 Cm 4069]

Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving us the business for next week and the provisional business for the week after we return from the recess. I wish her a very happy Christmas between those two weeks.
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the Prime Minister will give a full statement to the House on Monday following the Vienna summit? Will she also confirm that, in accordance with the traditions of the House, there will be a free vote when we consider the Modernisation Committee's report on Wednesday, and that that free vote will include all Labour Members and members of Her Majesty's Government? In her speech in


that debate, will she be able to meet one of the Committee's simpler recommendations, and give the dates of the Easter and Whitsun Adjournments?
In giving the provisional business for the week after the Christmas recess, the right hon. Lady did not mention the House of Lords reform Bill. Do the Government intend to introduce that Bill in January? Will she give the assurance for which we have asked that all stages of the Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House?
Will the right hon. Lady arrange a special debate, in the week or fortnight after we return, on the millennium dome and on the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for that major project, bearing in mind the fact that there will then be less than a year before its opening?
On a very important matter, will the right hon. Lady arrange for a statement next week by the Prime Minister or, if that is not possible, by the Foreign Secretary on the criteria governing relations with friendly democratic states? May we be told what has happened to the doctrine of non-interference in the internal affairs of such nations? Will the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary explain in that statement what the reaction of Her Majesty's Government would be if a Member of either House of Parliament or of the Northern Ireland Assembly were arrested abroad on political charges related to the Province?

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his Christmas good wishes, and return them to hon. Members on both sides of the House. He asks whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is likely to make a statement on the outcome of the Vienna Council; I anticipate that he will. I take this opportunity to apologise to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who last week asked me what I thought was the same question, although it turns out that it was not, which meant that I told him that the Prime Minister would make a statement about a matter on which he was not intending to make one. I apologise for that misunderstanding.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Modernisation Committee, and about whether there will be a free vote in the debate. He will be well aware that some of the proposals have been made by the Government, and there will be a free vote—at least on this side of the House. I hope that that will apply to the Opposition also. I fear that I cannot undertake at this moment to give the dates of the Easter and Whitsun recesses, but I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we anticipate introducing the Lords reform Bill during January. I hope that the Bill will be introduced quickly. I am aware of the Opposition's view that all stages should be taken on the Floor of the House, and that is the kind of issue that I am happy to discuss through the usual channels.
I fear that I cannot undertake to offer an early, special debate on the millennium dome, or on the responsibilities in that matter of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The matter is raised continually in this House by Conservative Members, and it seems to me that they have ample opportunities to air it.
Finally, I fear that I cannot undertake to provide a statement—either by the Prime Minister or by the Foreign Secretary—on the broad issue of relations with friendly democratic states if, as I take it to be the case, the hon.

Gentleman is referring, not very elliptically, to the case of Senator Pinochet. The hon. Gentleman will be as aware as I am of the operation and delicacy of the sub judice rule. I take the point that that is not quite what he is asking, but it would be quite hard to have a debate of the kind for which he has asked—

Sir Patrick Cormack: Or a statement.

Mrs. Beckett: Indeed. For the reasons which have led the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter, it would be hard to have a debate or a statement that touched on the issues without trespassing on the territory of the sub judice rule.
The hon. Gentleman asked what my view would be should a Member of this House be arrested overseas. I hope that it will not be thought unduly frivolous if I say that it would probably depend on who it was, frankly.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: If, as I suspect, in Wednesday's debate on the modernisation of the House, there is a proposal for an extra week off for Members of Parliament to coincide with half term, would it not make more sense, and be more acceptable to the public, if there was a week or two in September when the House returned? There is a problem in terms of the number of holidays that Members of Parliament can have. To add another week without some compensatory sitting week at another time would not be acceptable to a lot of people out there.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend knows the great respect that I have for him, his concerns and his record in this House and outside. For once, however, I must take issue with him. The Modernisation Committee has proposed the option of a non-sitting week. If time can be found—and I am not necessarily saying that it will be in the coming Session, although the Government will do our best—it will be for the House to reach a view on a free vote. As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, that is not by any means the same thing as a holiday.
All hon. Members have a vast range of pressing duties, and the Committee chose quite deliberately not to call the proposed week a constituency week, because there are many other issues to which hon. Members must give their time. My hon. Friend will know—although he may not sympathise—that many hon. Members feel that we ought to devote a little more time to liaising with parliamentarians in other EU member states. [Laughter.] That might not appeal to my hon. Friend. There is concern in the EU about the level of scrutiny that Parliaments in member states are able to give to EU business, and about whether we have sufficiently good liaison with Parliaments that may share some of our concerns.
On his suggestion about September, my hon. Friend may not yet have had a chance to study the Committee report, but he should be aware that it also identified the fact that we believe that it should be open to both Select and Standing Committees to designate a Committee week in September when they might be able to devote their attention to their work and bridge the gap that is sometimes thought to open up.
I am especially sensitive to the suggestion that we are asking the House to vote itself extra holidays. As someone with a marginal seat, I have had only one holiday a year for about 15 years, and that in the summer recess.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Some of us were privileged to attend this morning a moving, non-


denominational, ecumenical service to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. The anniversary is precisely today. Does the Leader of the House realise that there is an irony, because there was reference in the service to General Pinochet, so obviously the matter is not sub judice in Westminster abbey, even though it is in the House?
With that anniversary in mind, is it not high time we had a full debate, in Government time, on progress towards an ethical foreign policy? I understand that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is about to produce a report. Can we have a debate early in the new year? I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give us an assurance that all the recommendations of the Scott inquiry into the iniquities of the previous regime will be fully assessed in that debate.
On the matter of ethics in political life at home, has the Leader of the House noted the fact that the Conservative party has refused to implement its own promises on secret and foreign donations?

Mrs. Beckett: I am indeed aware that it is the 50th anniversary of the declaration of human rights. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary attended the service in Westminster abbey, in the presence of the Princess Royal. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) is hosting a reception this afternoon; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is addressing a special session of the United Nations General Assembly; and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin) will be attending a commemorative event in Vienna, where it is intended to issue a joint United Kingdom-German proposal to publish an annual European Union human rights report. A great deal is being done, quite rightly, to commemorate what is a very important anniversary.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted an issue of concern to hon. Members, and a matter on which I am confident that you, Madam Speaker, are very sensitive: the operation of the sub judice rule here. He will know that Parliament acts in a special and separate capacity: we are the law-making body, and it is right that we are especially sensitive and careful.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a full debate on foreign policy in Government time. There was a full debate on foreign affairs only recently, in the debates on the Gracious Speech, but I will certainly bear in mind his further request, and indeed his concomitant request for a full assessment of the recommendations in the Scott report. I am mindful of the range of those recommendations, and the Government want to implement them and follow the spirit of the proposed safeguards.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I had observed—I cannot remember whether he asked whether I was surprised by it—the fact that the Conservative party is yet again not adhering to what it claimed to be its own rules

and views on announcements of the source of funding. I had observed it, and I am sorry to say that I was not surprised.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend will know that the European Commission has proposed a ban, from 1 January 1999, on four antibiotic compounds that are used as growth promoters in animal feed. I understand that the issue will be discussed at the Agriculture Council on Monday and Tuesday next week. I know that we have a crowded schedule next week, but the issue is important to many of us. Will it be possible for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement to the House on the Government's position?

Mrs. Beckett: I hear what my hon. Friend says and I understand his view that the issue is important, although I must admit that I had not appreciated that it was to be discussed. I cannot promise him to find time for a statement, but I feel confident that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will be happy to acquaint him with the Government's view on the matter.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the Leader of the House consider publishing next week a list of the all-party parliamentary groups that have satisfied the House authorities of their viability? The number of such groups has exploded in this Parliament to the congestion of the Whip and to some conflict, to the extent that outside bodies can be disappointed by the number of Members of Parliament who turn up.

Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware that it was within my sphere of responsibility to publish such a list, but I am happy to consider the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. I take his point, because it is difficult to strike a balance, and it must often be struck afresh in a new Parliament. So many entirely well-meaning and worthy people have a passionate interest in this or that subject and urge Members of Parliament to set up or join various groups. I will not conceal from the right hon. Gentleman that I have long since replied to such people that there is a limit to the number of causes that I can support, and I have declined to join many of the groups that I could have joined. I take his point that it leads to disappointment when not as many Members attend events as was hoped, but that is also a feature of the enormous pressure on the diaries of hon. Members. No one could possibly undertake everything that people would like us to do.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we debate the horrific abuse of medicinal drugs in care homes? A debate could examine the successful exercise conducted by the school of old age psychiatry in Manchester. The researchers went into care homes and examined the use of neuroleptic drugs on the elderly. They found that in more than half the cases in which signs of dementia were shown by patients, the cause was not senility, but the over-use of neuroleptic drugs. Other trials in Glasgow have found that many people end their days in misery and confusion because care homes wish to minimise trouble. Many elderly people are defenceless victims of such over-use of drugs and it causes them


immense damage. The exercise carried out in Manchester should be replicated throughout the country. When may we have a debate to ensure that that is done?

Mrs. Beckett: The whole House will share my hon. Friend's concern. I cannot promise him time in the near future for a special debate, but I can remind him, first, that it is health questions next week and, secondly and perhaps more helpfully, that we will have the recess Adjournment debate in which any issue can be raised. My hon. Friend may be successful in catching your eye, Madam Speaker.

Mr. John Bercow: In the light of the unsatisfactory replies given by the Secretary of State for Health to the House on Tuesday, will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the subject of the mentally ill? Does she recognise that an early debate would afford an opportunity for the Government to give the categorical commitment, which the Secretary of State failed to give on Tuesday, that all new psychiatric units will exclusively comprise single-sex wards?

Mrs. Beckett: I am a little surprised by the hon. Gentleman's tone. Having heard a large part of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement and its aftermath, I understood that it had been widely welcomed everywhere, except on the Conservative Benches. I certainly heard my right hon. Friend robustly affirm his views about the undesirability of single-sex wards.

Mr. David Winnick: Could my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary be asked whether copies of the United Nations charter on human rights, which celebrates its 50th anniversary today, could be distributed by the British embassy in Chile to anti-British and unruly elements who are demonstrating? Perhaps that would explain to them the decision made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mrs. Beckett: That is a most interesting suggestion, and I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who will, I am sure, be most grateful for it.

Mr. Philip Hammond: The right hon. Lady's statement on the provisional business for the first week of next year contained no reference to the Bill on the national health service. Would she confirm that the Government's pledge to wind up fundholding by 31 March would require that Bill to pass into law before that date? Does the absence of the Bill from the provisional business for the first week of next year imply that the Government have finally abandoned the attempt to keep the pledge of abolishing fundholding by 31 March?

Mrs. Beckett: The Gracious Speech referred to a Bill to reform the health service, and a Bill will be brought forward. I cannot immediately recall the issues relating to a specific deadline, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government clearly believe that we must dispense with the bureaucracy and waste that fundholding brought. We intend to ensure that doctors have the freedom to prescribe high-quality health care for their patients.

Mr. Peter Bradley: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the local government ombudsman

yesterday published a damning finding against Westminster city council. He found that the council had subjected vulnerable homeless families to unspeakable living conditions in the Clarendon Court hotel in Maida Vale, while paying £750,000 of taxpayers' money in housing benefits to the proprietors of that dubious establishment. Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) for exposing that scandal and putting an end to it?
Does my right hon. Friend recall the instruction given by Conservative leaders of Westminster city council to officers to be mean and nasty to the homeless, shortly before families were forced into asbestos-riddled tower blocks not five miles from here? Does she also recall that not one right hon. or hon. Member from the Conservative Benches has so far uttered a syllable of regret or remorse for, or condemnation of, the doings of their colleagues at Westminster city hall?
Does my right hon. Friend share my sense of outrage at the fact that every local authority in the country is subject to a levy that the Audit Commission has been forced to impose to help it to meet the legal costs of contesting the appeal of Dame Shirley Porter and David Weeks against surcharge? Would it be appropriate to find time in our schedule for a debate on the appalling affairs of the flagship Tory authority, which would at least offer Conservative Members one last chance to express some remorse or regret?

Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's views. Labour has every right to be proud of those colleagues who, as councillors at Westminster, did so much to expose what was happening to people and to bring to a close the appalling situation whereby people were made to live in such dreadful properties. I well recall that my hon. Friend drew his concerns about the matter to my attention during the general election campaign.
I share my hon. Friend's sadness at the knock-on effects of the problems raised by the cases brought against Dame Shirley Porter and others. We believed the behaviour of Westminster city council, quite aside from its dreadful human consequences, to be illegal—as has since been proved. Whenever it was raised in the House—time and time again—during the previous Parliament, we heard repeated assertions from members of the party then in government that, if any wrongdoing were proven, they would certainly condemn it. To this day, those Members have not done so. Some of my hon. Friends wrote on the matter almost a year ago to the Leader of the Opposition and to the former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), but they have not elicited any reply.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the United Nations weapons inspectors were yesterday obstructed in the course of their business? Is she further aware that not only Christmas but Ramadan is approaching, and that the opportunity exists for Saddam Hussein to make a good deal of trouble with which it would be extremely difficult to deal? Will the right hon. Lady give some consideration to asking the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary to make a statement about the situation in Iraq before the House rises? If that is not possible, will she let me know what possible


contingency plans could be in place, because, if the obstruction continues, it will clearly be necessary for the allies to take appropriate action?

Mrs. Beckett: I am indeed aware of the approach of Ramadan, as my constituency celebrates everything from Diwali to Ramadan and, indeed, Vaisakhi. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I am not in a position to say whether it would be right or necessary for the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary to make a statement before the House rises. We all hope that the pressure on the Iraqi Government will cause them to rethink. I can say, however, that the Government have, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman accepts, taken pains to try to keep the House informed throughout, and will continue to do so.

Mr. Denis MacShane: May we have an early debate on press freedom and the availability of media in our regions? The Lord President may be aware that the Rotherham Star, the local evening paper that serves some quarter of a million people in and around my constituency, faces closure because of a decision by Regional Independent Media, a Leeds-based company that publishes the Yorkshire Evening Post and a number of evening papers in Yorkshire and the north-west of England.
The managing director of that organisation, or chief executive as such people are now called, has issued dismissal notices to up to 350 employees, despite the fact that the paper is bringing in record profits and advertising revenue for the group, and plans to invest £6.5 million next year. If the Rotherham Star, my local evening paper, is closed, there will be no local evening daily for a quarter of a million people. That is bad for democracy and for local politics.
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that such action comes close to contempt for the House of Commons—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. MacShane: I am coming to a close, I promise.
In a memorandum dated 19 August 1998, the chief executive warned that these mass redundancies were designed to avoid legislation that was in the pipeline. That should concern us all. Three hundred and fifty people will lose their jobs, and their families will have a miserable Christmas because of legislation passed by representatives of the people of this country, but this is also an important issue in terms of media democracy in our regions and the contempt shown for the democratic process of the House of Commons.

Mrs. Beckett: I am certainly sorry to learn that my hon. Friend's constituents are in danger of losing access to a local paper and, like the whole House, I am also sorry to learn that many people are about to lose their employment. This is a particularly sensitive time of year for people to find themselves in such circumstances.
I have slightly mixed feelings about the second part of the concerns aired by my hon. Friend. I certainly share his view that it is right and proper for the House to consider and, if it wishes to do so, to pass legislation that we believe will improve the governance and condition of

our country, and that it is wrong for people to attempt to evade such democratically arrived at decisions. Equally, however, I feel a certain cynicism when I hear people claim that solely as a result of something that any Government—but especially this one—have done, they have been obliged to lay off considerable numbers of people.
I have never forgotten that, shortly before the 1992 general election, an announcement was made by a fairly major employer that, should a Labour Government be elected and introduce a national minimum wage, it would be forced to make several hundred of its employees redundant. We were not elected and there was no minimum wage, but that employer made 2,000 people redundant about three weeks after the election.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 59?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Income Support (General) (Standard Interest Rate Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998 No. 2878), dated 23rd November 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th November, be annulled.]
Will the right hon. Lady find time for a debate in the appropriate Committee on this very important statutory instrument, to allow investigation of the anomalies and difficulties that are raised by social security regulations in the support and help of those who are on low incomes and live in owner-occupied residences? The problems for those with mortgages and mortgage interest rate payments, which they have to face, are baffling and bewildering even to the experts, never mind those who are subject to them. Will the right hon. Lady find time for the statutory instrument to be debated, in accordance with the wishes of many hon. Members?

Mrs. Beckett: I sympathise with those who find social security issues, and regulations especially, arcane and difficult. I was fortunate enough, if I can put it like that, to spend five years shadowing Social Security Ministers, so I am under no illusions about the complexity and opaqueness of such matters. I am conscious that very often what happens is the net knock-on effect of a range of different decisions, which people find difficult to assess and understand.
I sympathise with the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman and by those who have signed his early-day motion. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to provide time for a specialist debate. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there will be a debate on the Christmas Adjournment. For those who are fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, any such issue can be raised.

Mr. Tony McNulty: My right hon. Friend will know that there remain real concerns about progress on the third-country trial of those responsible for the Lockerbie air disaster. Is there to be any statement or further information on the progress that is being made this side of the Christmas recess? Are there any plans for senior Ministers to meet families of the Lockerbie victims to discuss that progress?

Mrs. Beckett: As far as I am aware, there are no particular plans, although the Government continue to


discuss and express concern about these matters, for a statement in the House. However, I can say to my hon. Friend—I hope that this will be welcome to him and other hon. Members who have taken a great interest in these matters—that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is meeting this afternoon, or has met, the families of some of the Lockerbie victims. I think that I am correct in saying that he is the first Prime Minister to do so. It is a deliberate signal, and an indication of the Government's concern and of our determination to do everything that we can to bring those who may be thought to be responsible to trial so that these matters can be assessed.

Mr. David Heath: In welcoming the promise of a statement on the outcome of the Vienna Council, may I bring the Leader of the House back to the assurance that she thought she had given last week, but had not because it was given on the wrong premise? Will she consider a debate in Government time on common foreign and security policy? Will she urge the Prime Minister to contribute to that debate? We did not have statements following Portschach and St. Malo. The Prime Minister has been saying some interesting things about the development of common foreign and security policy and the only people who have not had a chance to debate it are Members of this place. Will the right hon. Lady find time for us to do so?

Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not entirely accurate. It is only quite recently that we had a full day's debate on foreign and defence affairs, in the debate on the Gracious Speech.

Everything that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been saying and the point of view that he has been expressing in the discussions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are very much in line with the views that he has expressed and made plain in the House. I therefore cannot promise to find time for another debate on the Floor of the House in the near future, although the hon. Gentleman may seek to raise the matter, should he catch your eye, Madam Speaker, during the debate on the Christmas Adjournment.
May I add that the Government have recently accepted the report of the Select Committee on Modernisation with regard to scrutiny of European Union legislation, so that all the issues that come under those pillars of policy making can be much more fully scrutinised in the House than used to be the case.

BILL PRESENTED

TAX CREDITS

Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Stephen Byers, Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Dawn Primarolo and Ms Patricia Hewitt, presented a Bill to provide for family credit and disability working allowance to be known, respectively, as working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit; and to make further provision with respect to those credits, including provision for the transfer of functions relating to them: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 9].

ESTIMATES DAY

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

VOTE ON ACCOUNT 1999-2000

Class IV, Vote 1

Prison Sentences

[Relevant documents: Third Report from the Home Affairs Committee of Session 1997–98, on Alternatives to Prison Sentences, HC486, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 4174; and the Home Office Departmental Annual Report 1998, Cm 3908.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,299,414,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Home Office on police; the Forensic Science Service; registration of forensic practitioners; emergency planning; fire services; the Fire Service College; criminal policy and programmes including offender programmes; the prevention of drug abuse; crime reduction and prevention; provision of services relating to the Crime and Disorder Act; criminal justice service research; criminal injuries compensation; organised and international crime; control of immigration and nationality; issue of passports; community and constitutional services; firearms compensation and related matters; and on administration (excluding the provision for prisons administration carried on Class IV, Vote 2).—[Mr. Boateng.]

Mr. Chris Mullin: The interest of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in alternatives to prison arose from the single stark fact that, when we commenced our inquiry, the prison population appeared to be escalating out of control. It had risen from 43,000 in March 1993 to 65,000 in March this year, and was at that time predicted to rise to more than 80,000 in the next seven years.
A point had been reached when much of the undoubted progress of the past 20 years—in terms of providing constructive regimes, ending three to a cell and detaining convicted prisoners in police stations—was in jeopardy. We were moving back towards regimes that simply warehoused prisoners, rather than making any serious attempt to rehabilitate them or persuade them to confront their offending behaviour. Those in charge of the Prison Service were telling anyone who cared to listen that, if the prison population continued to rise at that rate, serious problems lay ahead.
So great was the concern among serious people that there came a moment during a debate in the House of Lords when three former Conservative Home Secretaries—the noble Lords Carr, Baker and Hurd, none of whom can be dismissed as a namby-pamby do-gooder—combined to challenge the then accepted wisdom that prison works. We took our cue from them.
For the avoidance of doubt, I must make it clear from the outset that none of us on the Select Committee is under any illusion about the need for prisons. All of us have constituents whose lives have been made miserable by crime. Some of us, particularly those who represent the less leafy areas of the country, have entire neighbourhoods devastated by criminal activity. We recognise that there are people—persistent criminals and

those who engage in serious violence—for whom prison is the only appropriate solution. Nothing in our report is intended to suggest otherwise. I cannot stress that too strongly.
It would be foolish, however, not to recognise that the "prison works" philosophy has serious limitations. First, it is expensive. It costs an average of £24,000 a year to detain an adult prisoner, and double that to imprison a juvenile. It is arguable that the same amount of money invested differently could, in some cases, be spent a great deal more effectively to reduce reoffending among at least some of those now imprisoned.
Secondly, although prison self-evidently works as a form of containment, there is the difficulty that the overwhelming majority of prisoners will eventually be released back into the community, where a disappointingly high number of them simply pick up where they left off.
The point was eloquently made by the noble Lord Baker in the debate in the House of Lords to which I referred:
It was a mistake of the previous government to believe that just one phrase—prison works—was necessary. The phrase has a spurious and superficial logic. It is superficial because if a criminal is in prison, clearly he cannot be committing crime outside. It is spurious because it does not take into account … the fact that 99.9 per cent. of all criminals will one day be released. Society will then find that prisons do not work."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 1998; Vol. 587, c. 1244.]
If we are to stand any chance of reforming those whom it is necessary to imprison, it is essential that we construct regimes where prisoners are obliged to confront their offending behaviour, and that we do not simply use our prisons as warehouses. That cannot be done if the efforts of the Prison Service to provide constructive regimes are simply overwhelmed by the need to cope with ever-increasing numbers.
That was the background to our inquiry. Our purpose was to discover whether credible alternatives to imprisonment existed that were both sufficiently rigorous and at least as successful—and preferably more—in rehabilitating offenders.
Those from whom we took evidence included representatives of the Prison Service, the police and the probation service. We saw the Lord Chief Justice, the Magistrates Association, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons and the inspectorate of probation as well as representatives of voluntary agencies that work with offenders, in and out of prison.
I was anxious that those who take the view that prison works should be given an opportunity to state their case. We therefore took written and oral evidence from Mr. Peter Coad and Mr. David Fraser, retired senior probation officers, and Professor Ken Pease, a criminologist. In addition, we visited a variety of probation and other projects around the country in search of examples of best practice that we could commend. We visited projects in Manchester, Greenock, Dumbarton, Bolton, Burnley, Tyneside, Teesside, Blackburn, London and the Thames valley.
With two exceptions, all those witnesses who expressed a view argued that the present prison population was too large and that ways should be found of reducing it. The exceptions were the Police Superintendents Association and Mr. Peter Coad and his colleagues. They argued that the fall in crime in recent years could be ascribed wholly or mainly to increased use of imprisonment.
Mr. Coad and his colleagues went further, and argued that the reoffending rates for most, if not all, of those on probation or serving a community service order were as bad as or worse than the rates for those who had served a prison sentence. They alleged that the probation service had for many years misled Parliament and the public about the effectiveness of their work, and advocated an increase in the prison population to whatever level was necessary to protect the public from criminality. Mr. Coad and Mr. Fraser told us that that would entail a prison population of 200,000, "to begin with".
Professor Pease, sensing perhaps that Mr. Coad had been a little too frank, hastily suggested a further increase of no more than 10,000—a figure which on present trends will soon be exceeded. At that point, I felt—I believe that I speak for the entire Committee—that their evidence fell apart. We unanimously rejected the suggestion that a prison population of 200,000—three times the existing record level—was either feasible or desirable.
Although prison has some impact, I do not accept that the recent fall in crime can be solely, or even mainly, attributed to the rise in the prison population. There are a variety of factors. One is a general improvement in the quality of policing, which is certainly the case in Sunderland. Another, and surely the most significant, is the fact that unemployment has fallen by 40 per cent. over the past five years.
With the possible exception of the previous Home Secretary, I do not know anyone who believes that there is no connection between unemployment and crime, although that is obviously not the only connection. Hon. Members who represent areas such as mine and those represented by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends would have had to drop off a Christmas tree from a great height not to notice a connection between unemployment and crime.
Having said that, there is a significant respect in which the Committee found itself in agreement with the analysis of Mr. Coad and his colleagues. There is no doubt—Her Majesty's inspector of probation acknowledged this—that the probation service went through a period some years ago when many probation officers came to regard the offender, not the taxpayer, as their client. I am glad that those days are behind us, but I cannot stress too strongly that, if a sceptical public are to be convinced that there are credible alternatives to imprisonment, they will also need to be persuaded that those who supervise offenders in the community have their interests—not those of the offender—in the forefront of their minds.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee for giving way on that matter. Mr. Peter Coad indeed made the case that, given the number of offences that had been committed, 200,000 people should be locked up. I had some sympathy with some of the points that he was making. However, in the Government's response to our report, which was published this week, the Home Secretary said:
It is for the courts to decide the appropriate sentence in any individual case … The Prison Service then has a duty to keep in custody those sentenced to prison.
If the courts decide that a custodial sentence is required, and that 200,000 people fit that bill, will the Prison Service not have to provide those places?

Mr. Mullin: Yes. The burden of our report, to which the hon. Gentleman subscribes—it was approved

unanimously—is that there are, if we look for them, credible and effective alternatives to imprisonment, and that, if sentencers look for them, they too might find such alternatives. I entirely accept, however, that, if someone has committed a crime that merits a prison sentence and for which there is no effective and credible alternative, to prison he must go.
The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say a moment ago that there was one significant respect in which the Committee found itself in agreement with Mr. Coad's analysis: it is the point that I made a moment ago about the past role of the probation service.

Mr. Robin Corbett: When we were going around the country and talking to sentencers, it soon became obvious that very few of them had sufficient knowledge of the alternatives to prison—even of schemes in their areas that have turned people away from reoffending and shown them how their lives could be worth while. That shows that, where there is knowledge and belief, the schemes are extremely valuable. We are not talking about allowing people to walk away from the court because they are not sent to prison.

Mr. Mullin: My hon. Friend is right. One of the problems is that none of us is sufficiently aware of the alternatives. In the past, some of the alternatives were not sufficiently rigorous to justify their being called alternatives. Happily, that is now beginning to change. I accept that a precondition of reducing the prison population is that there must be credible alternatives. It is not sufficient for those who favour a reduction in the use of imprisonment simply to assert that community service and other alternatives are at least as, or more, effective. That must be shown by reference to empirical evidence.
The Committee was surprised to discover that, of the 267 projects examined by the probation inspectorate as part of its "what works" project—an important piece of work—only 33 could provide serious evidence of the outcomes. That is not necessarily a criticism of the type of programme, but if one wants to sell that programme, however good it may be, and the outcome cannot be demonstrated, the programme deserves criticism. Of the 33 projects that could provide evidence of the outcome, in only four cases did the research demonstrate credible examples of good practice.
We welcome the fact that the probation service now recognises that problem, and is taking steps to deal with it. However, if community service is to be promoted as a credible alternative to imprisonment—I believe that in many cases it is—it must be supported by hard evidence, not by assertion.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: There is one point on which I have seen no research. Obviously, it is possible to look at whether a disposal other than imprisonment has a better outcome for a certain group, but in respect of people on the margin of being sent to prison, is there much evidence to show whether being sent to prison has such an outcome? The alternative does not necessarily have to be probation or community service; simply sending such people to prison may be worse than not sending them to prison.

Mr. Mullin: I am not entirely sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point—I am sure that it is my fault rather than his. It may help him if I deal with some of the specific areas that the Committee examined.
We looked at a pilot project on electronic tagging, which has been operating in Manchester since 1995. Similar experiments are under way in other parts of the country. Although there were some initial teething troubles, we were glad to note that those appeared to have been overcome and that tagging was likely to come into general use next year.
Curfew orders enforced by electronic monitoring could have two applications. First, they could be used as a sentence available to the courts for someone who would otherwise be sent to prison, and could be combined with a probation or a community service order. Secondly, a home detention curfew order could be used as a condition of parole for shorter-term prisoners. It has been estimated—indeed, I believe that it is the Government's intention—that that could free 3,000 prison places a year in the medium term.
The key to the success of electronic tagging is enforcement. The technology enables the slightest breach to be registered. When a serious breach occurs, it is important that the offender understands that consequences will follow swiftly. In most cases, the logical consequence of a serious failure to comply with a curfew order is imprisonment. We shall watch with interest the rigour with which curfew orders are enforced.
We examined programmes of intensive probation. Of particular interest was the model based on the so-called Dordrecht initiative, which we visited in Burnley. That programme concentrated on the 100 or so most persistent offenders in the town. Many of them had served repeated terms of imprisonment, which had had no impact on their offending behaviour. To qualify for a place on the programme, each offender had to show a serious intent to reform. The programme offered them help to reconstruct often chaotic life styles by providing access to drug or alcohol rehabilitation, education, training and, one hopes, in due course, work.
We were impressed by the dedication of those running the programme, one of whom was a police officer. He told me that it was a pleasure to be involved in the project, because, instead of locking up the same old people time after time, it held out the prospect of addressing the roots of the problem. He found the work very satisfying, and we were impressed with him and his colleagues. At the time of our visit, it was too early to evaluate the programme, but we believe that it has every chance of success.

Mr. David Winnick: I am a member of the Select Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that the visits we made and the documentary evidence we received made us aware of the persistent anti-social behaviour of many people on probation? In the past, some aspects of the probation service have been criticised. I have not done so, because I worked with the service for two weeks in 1973 and I recognise the tremendous difficulties that probation staff face when dealing with people with a history of anti-social behaviour, who have often been in and out of prison. It is not an easy job, and I imagine that no one in the House would want to undertake probation work.

Mr. Mullin: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I take it as read that those who work with offenders often have

to deal with extremely difficult customers, so we should not be surprised if there are some failures. We must acknowledge the dedication of people who work with offenders. We saw some impressive work in the many projects that we visited around the country.
We examined the extent to which probation and community service orders are enforced. The first thing to be said is that the available statistics in this area are inadequate. According to Home Office research, about 70 per cent. of such orders are successfully completed. It is far from clear what happens to those who fail to turn up. We were told that it can take between three weeks and two months to return to court an offender in breach of an order, and that the police do not attach high priority to tracking down those who fail to respond to court orders.
It goes without saying that the credibility of community service and probation orders is fatally undermined if those who decline to co-operate go unpunished. The Committee recommended that an experiment should be conducted to see whether civil enforcement agencies could be used more effectively. I welcome the Government's response that, as soon as an opportunity arises, legislation will be introduced to give effect to that recommendation.
Several members of the judiciary remarked to us that they regretted the recent restrictions on the use of the suspended sentence, which they regarded as one of the more effective tools in their armoury. I am glad to note from the Government's response to our report that Ministers are considering the use of suspended sentences, in conjunction with community service orders.
Our report should not be seen in isolation; it should be seen merely as a further step along the road to a criminal justice system that is more effective in protecting the public and reducing criminality. In particular, it should be seen alongside the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which has greatly increased the number of options available to the police and the courts when they deal with youth crime. Until the Act, our criminal justice system had become virtually ineffective against young criminals, and that, more than any other factor, has undermined public confidence in non-custodial sentences. I welcome all that the Government have done so far to speed up youth justice and render it more effective: I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes the issue seriously.
There is another issue, however, which we have hardly begun to tackle. It requires co-ordinated action by several Departments, not just the Home Office. I refer to diversion: diverting vulnerable young people away from criminal activity. When the former permanent secretary at the Home Office appeared before the Select Committee a few years ago—he has now gone on to more exalted things, if it is possible to become more exalted than permanent secretary at the Home Office—I asked him how much of the Home Office budget was spent on diversion. It became clear through our exchanges that he did not know what I was talking about; but the following year, when he returned, there was a paragraph in the Home Office annual report headed "Diversion". We make progress, but slowly.
At present, we spend far too much on locking people up after they have become criminals, and not nearly enough on diverting vulnerable young people from criminal life styles. The expenditure of relatively small sums could prevent us from having to spend much larger sums further down the line. During our inquiry, we visited


a project called "Youth Works" in Blackburn, the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We were told that the project cost about £180,000 a year to run, and that it provided a large number of vulnerable young people—who would otherwise be hanging around the streets in a high-crime area with nothing to do—with constructive activities outside school hours.
On the Pennywell estate in my constituency, there is a scheme called "Break-out", which helps to occupy nearly 700 vulnerable youngsters. It costs about £60,000 a year, the cost of locking up one juvenile for 18 months. The moral of the story is obvious, yet most of the money has to be begged, and those who run such excellent schemes rarely know where their funds will come from more than a few months in advance.

Miss Melanie Johnson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the work of the social exclusion unit may become particularly relevant to the problems that he is raising? I am thinking especially of children who are even younger than those of whom he is speaking. The all-party parenting group was recently given a presentation by the head of a unit for teenage mothers, which has a nursery unit for the women's young children attached to it. She said that she already felt certain that some of those children were tomorrow's criminals. In trying to divert people from a criminal life style, we need to consider the whole age span.

Mr. Mullin: I subscribe to all that my hon. Friend has said. The earlier we start, the better are our chances of diverting young people from a life that could lead to crime. In that context, I am worried by the trend towards excluding more children from school. Unless we get to grips with the problem, we shall build up great difficulties for the future.
As I have said, our report should not be seen in isolation. It should be seen alongside the Crime and Disorder Act, and the Government's literacy and numeracy programme. All that is relevant to our attempts to build a cohesive society, and to reverse the awful trends that have set in over the past 20 or 30 years.
I return to diversion, although I shall not dwell on the subject; strictly speaking, it is a matter for another inquiry on another day. I just say that, if we are serious about tackling the causes of crime as well as the symptoms, much more attention must be paid to helping to divert vulnerable young people before they become criminals, rather than picking up the pieces after it is too late.
As I have said, the report is unanimous. I hope that it marks the formal end of the "prison works" philosophy; indeed, it probably died on the day in March this year when those three former Conservative Home Secretaries repudiated it in the House of Lords. However, I accept that the burden of proving that our prison population is too high lies with those who want to reduce it.
The public are entitled to expect that non-custodial sentences are sufficiently robust to leave offenders in no doubt about the seriousness of their offending, and to reduce the possibility of repetition. Everyone from the Home Secretary and Lord Chief Justice downwards has a part to play in that.
The probation service must never lose sight of the fact that it represents the public, not the offender. Judges and magistrates must, for their part, show a greater

willingness, where appropriate, to pass non-custodial sentences and to acquaint themselves with the range of possibilities that are on offer. The media, too, have an important role to play.
Every week in my local newspaper, one reads stories that so-and-so "walked free" from court with "only" 200 hours of community service. Two hundred hours of community service could, if it were sufficiently rigorous, be much more beneficial than a six-month prison sentence.
Finally, all responsible politicians should help to prepare public opinion for a reduction in the prison population by calmly drawing attention to the consequences of continuing to fill our prisons to bursting point and to the existence of credible and effective alternatives. I commend the report to the House.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: As always, I begin by declaring an interest as a recorder of the Crown court and as an acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate.
It was a privilege to be on the Select Committee and to take part in the publication of the report. One of the pleasures of being on a Select Committee is that one operates in what is effectively a non-party political way, discussing, in this case, a difficult, serious and important subject without anyone having to score political points but with members doing their best to put in their few pennyworth. The subject of the report is, indeed, a difficult subject: we have been a civilised country for hundreds of years, yet the crime rate keeps going up, and the debate about whether custody stops people committing crime will go on and on.
Not one of us on the Select Committee or in the House has all the answers, and it is difficult to find anyone who really knows exactly what to do when it comes to the twin duties of protecting society and promoting the welfare of the offender—if one can do that, because it is an almost possible task.
I pause to say, in passing, that we all acknowledge that, in the last five years of the last Conservative Government, crime fell dramatically. The then Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), rightly received much congratulation on that. However, the prison population went up. Who in their right mind believes that a very high prison population is, of itself, a good thing? I do not, but who would say that courts must sentence people to community service and other penalties if they believe that prisons are getting too full? The right punishment must be imposed in every case, so there are competing factors. As I say, it is extremely difficult to reach any solid conclusions.
The Committee took evidence from people who said that probation works, because the reoffending rate of those on probation is lower than that of those coming out of prison. I am not sure that any statistic can ever establish that fact to one's certain satisfaction, because statistics do not tell the full truth. The short answer—it must be right—is that a prison sentence will work much better with some offenders than with others. Equally, a community penalty or a probation order will be highly effective with some offenders. It depends on the individual case.
1 should like to dwell on four different nuts-and-bolts issues, and to bring them to the Minister's attention. The Minister has had a distinguished career at the Bar


and—I know for a fact—takes a great interest in the subject. I am sure that he will be concerned about and interested in today's debate.
The first issue is community sentences, especially community service orders. Although the public have the misconception that community service orders are not tough, they can be very tough indeed. The missing element in such sentences is enforceability and proceedings on breach. From my experience I can tell the Minister that, quite often, people come before the court for breach of a community service order simply because they have not turned up—they have overslept, not felt like it or not bothered. What can the court do? Magistrates courts have a problem.
Technically, magistrates courts can imprison if the offence for which the community service order was passed was imprisonable; but that does not often happen. Quite often, the original offence was deemed not so serious that only a custodial sentence could be justified, but serious enough to warrant a community penalty. Magistrates generally are quite reluctant to exercise even their limited power to imprison. The court is then left to tackle someone who has breached a community service order with a fine or another community service order. The subsequent impression is that the offender has walked out of court without having faced the music, and that is a problem. The situation is even worse if the original offence was not imprisonable, because then breach of a community service order cannot result in the passing of a custodial sentence.
What is to be done? The Committee's report urges the Government to toughen up the provisions: to get those who are breaching community service orders into court more quickly—that is terribly important—and, once they are there, to have truly effective sanctions. In that regard, there is a very strong argument for the Government's considering introducing a new offence—breach of a community service order—for which one goes to prison.
I should tell the Minister that, when a United Kingdom court disqualifies someone from driving, that person is told: "You are disqualified from driving. If you breach that disqualification, you will be charged with it, and you will almost certainly go to prison." How good it would be to be able to say that when passing a community service order. I hope that we will get to that stage.
The second issue that I wish to raise is that of suspended sentences. Those who have the responsibility of passing suspended sentences have felt that such sentences are an extremely useful tool. In 1991, 28,000 suspended prison sentences were passed. However, subsequent legislation made it very difficult to pass such sentences, which could be used only in exceptional circumstances. The Court of Appeal has said that the "exceptional circumstances" are very narrow indeed. For my part, I cannot remember passing one suspended sentence in the past two years, because I could not think of any circumstances that were exceptional. However, I should have liked to do so on a number of occasions.
Among those giving evidence to the Committee were Mr. Allan Berg, a stipendiary magistrate from Manchester; Mr. Tim Workman, a stipendiary from London; and others, including court clerks and members of the lay bench. They all felt that suspended sentences were a really useful tool in a sentencer's armoury.
When should a suspended sentence be imposed? The Minister may say that it would not be easy to specify criteria in statute or to alter the current criteria, and I appreciate that. Equally, he may say that it would be allowing sentencers too wide a discretion to suspend a sentence when they felt it appropriate to do so. If there is confidence in our sentences, there is a good argument for bringing back the suspended sentence. It keeps out of prison some people who do not have to go there; it enables the court to take into account certain important factors; and it can be a tough threat hanging over someone's head.

Miss Melanie Johnson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that suspended sentences may be an effective tool to prevent the problem of fine defaulters serving prison sentences, which is covered in the report?

Mr. Malins: I was coming to that. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. Leaving a threat hanging over someone's head can be good, and could be more widely used for fine defaulters. The hon. Lady was not on the Select Committee at the time of our report, but she has made some good contributions since becoming a member. She is a welcome addition and is welcome in the Chamber today.
I shall be slightly controversial on the important subject of fines. The report talks about the problem of collecting fines, which is clearly not well done. Huge amounts are outstanding. For those who sit in the magistrates court, the pain of the week—it happens at least once a week—is sitting in the means court going through the outstanding fines to see what can be done. Sometimes it is easiest to remit the lot and go home early.
We have got ourselves into a mess on the procedure for collecting fines in our courts. Only three or four years ago, the person on the bench in such a case could say within seconds, "I believe this is culpable neglect or wilful refusal. Go to prison." It was common to say to a fine defaulter, "You owe £50. How much money do you have on you?" "Not a thing," would come the reply. "Very well," the sentencer would say, "How are you going to pay the £50?" "I'll pay a pound a week," the defaulter would reply. "That's not very good," the sentencer would say. "I'm thinking of sending you to prison for quite a long time. I'll tell you what. I've got a very busy morning. You can go down to the cells and I'll consider the case this afternoon and consider the nature of the sentence. Take him down to the cells, gaoler; do allow him two phone calls." The money would arrive by lunch time.
The courts have made a rod for their own back, because as the Minister knows, the sentencers can no longer approach the issue in that fashion. They have to go through the various possibilities. Issuing a distress warrant is ineffective. A deduction from income support is cumbersome and expensive, and the paperwork is complicated. As for a monetary payment supervision order, one can barely spell it, let alone decide how to work it. An attachment of earnings order? Well, who is earning anything in the court? Certainly not the stipendiaries sitting. Other possibilities include making an attendance centre order if the defaulter is under 25 or taking enforcement action in the High court.
Before prison can be considered, the whole checklist has to be gone through and reasons given why none of the measures is effective. No wonder those who handle the means courts scratch their heads and think, "Mmm. This isn't working very well."
It is important that fines should be at a sensible level. A young man in London needs his wheels to get around the city. A lot of young men have cars. The value may be £150 at most, but they need their wheels. I understand that. It is important and fair. By all means they should get the car insured, because if they do not they are in big trouble. However, the magistrates' guidelines tend to suggest that the fine for non-insurance of a motor car should be £400 to £700. I am afraid that too many benches—I exempt the stipendiaries—impose fines of £500, £600 or £700 for non-insurance on people who are on benefit and have not got a bean. That is hopeless.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend's extremely effective and interesting speech, but is not driving a car without insurance one of the most anti-social criminal offences? Crashing into someone in a car that is not insured has terrible consequences, and the courts are right to visit heavy penalties on those who misbehave in that way.

Mr. Malins: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right and he has great experience of these matters—[Interruption]—not of driving uninsured—far from it—but in the courts. Driving uninsured is a serious offence.
Many young people need their cars. They own bangers worth £200 or £300 and it is vital that they have insurance. However, it is ludicrous to fine them £600 that they do not have. In my view they should be fined £100 and disqualified from driving for a good long time. They should be banned for six to nine months and sentenced to community service. We should take driving uninsured seriously, but we must not overload the fine system. That would avoid the terrible problems involved in collection. I hope that the courts will bear that in mind.
I have covered suspended sentences, fines and enforcement of community service. As everyone who spoke to the Committee said, drugs are the biggest problem in the criminal justice system. I have heard such cases day after day, involving, for example, a young man of 25 who burgles and steals to raise money to fund his heroin habit and for no other reason. These young people—they are generally men—have had it by the age of 25. Their lives are ruined. There seems to be nothing that one can do—or is there? I give the Government credit for being well-intentioned in respect of drug treatment and testing orders, but I am not sure that they go far enough. We shall have to keep a careful eye on the matter.
An awful lot of young people who are on drugs may say, "I would like to get off them, but I just can't do it." They may have tried two or three times, but they cannot stop themselves. What is to be done? Someone in that position may have a drug treatment and testing order made against them. That is a community order under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 requiring someone to submit to treatment in such institution as may be specified.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is that mandatory even if the offender is not in agreement with the treatment order?

Mr. Malins: I do not think so. I think that there has to be an element of consent. No doubt I shall be corrected by the Minister. Under a drug treatment and testing order, the court says that the defendant must go and be treated.
Let us pause a moment here. I am not quite so worried about the person before the magistrates court, or possibly the Crown court, who is dabbling in drugs and sometimes causes problems. A drug treatment and testing order may be very good for such a person. I am more worried by the hard man of 25 who is a burglar. He burgles people's houses at midnight. He has committed a serious offence that requires custody. He is part of a gang of four and has carried out a heavy domestic burglary at midnight. It may be his fifth such burglary in the past six years, six months or even five days.
It is difficult to impose a drug testing order on a hardened criminal. Where should he be sent? I would not be happy to send him to a probation hostel, as it is not secure enough. What about hospital? Can anyone tell me where he should go? There is nowhere. The problem is where to put a heavy criminal to ensure that he is absolutely secure.
In our deliberations on the Crime and Disorder Bill, as it then was, I floated a new clause in an attempt to solve that problem. The measure would have put heavy drug takers in a drug-free secure prison—almost like a hospital—in which they could be treated. It would have been like saying: "Defendant, you have an option. You can do five years in Wormwood Scrubs for this domestic burglary or you can do 18 months' hard in the drug rehabilitation centre, which is like a prison and from which you can't get out." The idea did not get far, but I was flagging up the problem of people who are into drugs and are so dangerous that they cannot easily be given a non-custodial sentence. The Home Affairs Committee was united in the view that drugs were the big issue affecting us all in the criminal justice world.
It was a privilege to sit on the Committee. Many people are doing their best, but there are no straightforward answers. All members were impressed by some of the projects we saw. We came to the conclusion that diversion was good, and that some of the projects might be effective. We emerged knowing that prison would always be essential for many criminals, but we were given some hope by the fact that innovation and energy were being well directed to young people, who face much greater problems than we ever did. If such innovation, energy, interest and diversion are promoted hard, we will move—albeit slowly—down the right road.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The most haunting statement in the Home Affairs Committee's marvellous report—I ask members of the Committee to forgive me for not concentrating on the main thrust of their valuable recommendations, which I hope will be implemented—comes from the evidence of the chief inspector of prisons, who said that 70 per cent. of women prisoners should not be in prison. He gave the example of a woman who was sent to prison for three years for misbehaving in Trafalgar square—a minor offence.
There is evidence of an enormous drugs problem in women's prisons. Although we do not have a system of capital punishment, two women died this year as a direct result, I believe, of their experiences in prison. Their relatives are happy for me to give their names: one was Josie O'Dwyer and the other was Emma Humphreys.
The enormous drugs problem in prisons has entirely unexpected effects. In a letter dated 22 October, Lord Williams of Mostyn, the Minister with responsibility for


prisons, told me that the National Addiction Centre had found, in the only serious attempt to discover the effects of the mandatory drug testing system, that
Four per cent. of their sample of drug misusers had experimented with heroin for the first time because of MDT".
That is a rather surprising conclusion. We know from anecdotal evidence—not from prison governors but from prisoners themselves—that, because of the mandatory drug test, there is a move from soft, relatively harmless, non-addictive illegal drugs to deadly, addictive drugs.

Mr. Corbett: In prison.

Mr. Flynn: Yes, in prison.
The two unfortunate women, Josie O'Dwyer and Emma Humphreys, died as a result not of illegal drugs, however, but of medicinal drugs. To improve key performance indicators, prison governors can wean prisoners from relatively harmless drugs such as cannabis—which has never been known to kill anyone—and put them on killer drugs.
Emma Humphreys, who was abused throughout her life, became addicted to chloral hydrate in prison. She was released from prison when her sentence was judged to be unfair because of the foul abuse that she had suffered at the hands of a partner. She died in August this year, before she reached her 31st birthday, and her relatives are convinced that her death was due to her addiction to a medicinal drug that she acquired in prison.
On the final day of her life, Josie O'Dwyer took a list of drugs—I believe there were 13 in all—which I recorded in an early-day motion towards the end of the previous Session; it was an incredible cocktail of medicinal drugs that would have been enough to kill her many times over. Again, that woman was taking those drugs in prison.
Such is the regime of sedation in women's prisons that, on 13 August this year, there was a riot in Holloway—not because the women did not have their drugs, but because the drugs were delivered late. Three members of staff had flu that they had given to one another, and someone had to be brought in from outside to give the drugs. For a short period—a matter of a few hours—prisoners were without their sedation, which caused them to set fire to the bedding and the clothing within the hospital. We have a regime in prison which depends on women prisoners being sedated for most of the time.
By the time they get to prison, many young women have been abused in some way—by their partners, by society, by the care system or by their parents. A common reaction to abuse is self-mutilation. The almost universal medicine—it is a traditional, knee-jerk prescription—for such young women is largactol, a neuroleptic drug given to those who are deeply psychotic. The drug is used in other situations with which my hon. Friend the Minister will be familiar from his previous job.
Those young women form a special group in prison and, in the cruel jargon of prison, they are known as "muppets" because they walk in a funny way. These young women are not just damaged in prison, but probably their health has been damaged for life. The Committee recognised the importance of providing alternatives to prison and the probation programme which

tackle the problems presented by women's programmes specifically. The Government have agreed with the Committee that the needs of women offenders should be effectively and systematically addressed.
I would commend to all hon. Members a book written by Angela Devlin called "Invisible Women", published in June of this year, about women in prisons. I challenge anyone not to feel moved and horrified by the evidence it provides of what has been created within women's prisons—not just by medicinal drugs, but particularly by illegal drugs. There are regimes of bullying and gangsterism in prison, and examples of horrific inhumanity of man and woman to women. Drugs are the currency of prisons, and the flow of the drugs coming into prisons is out of control. The searches carried out on women in prison are bestial and foul, and disgrace the name of this country. Many women's prisons can be described rightly as gulags, rather than the areas of solace, asylum and care that we would rather think them to be.
I look forward to the next report on the subject, and I am sure that the Committee will look in more detail at the subject. I am sure that we shall see an improvement—despite the rather complacent Government reaction. Governments always say, "Yes, there is a problem, but it is not as bad as it used to be and we are tackling it." They are not tackling it with sufficient speed.
Another of the Committee's recommendations is that handing out community sentences is an effective way in which to reduce prisoners' drug habits in the long term and to protect the public. Of course that can be done—it is being done elsewhere—but extraordinary situations can arise, such as the two separate cases in Gwent in which two offenders were found guilty of very serious offences for the second or third time, and told the court that they had become addicted to heroin in prison and that if they went back they would become addicted again, because more heroin is available in prison than on the streets of Gwent.
On those two separate occasions, the two different courts decided that the offenders should not go to prison. That is a sensible and civilised outcome, but hon. Members can imagine the howl from the tabloid press, saying that drug addicts can get out of going to prison. Certainly, the cost to society and to the individuals involved would have been far greater had they gone to prison.
I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has deep knowledge of these matters, not to follow the traditional course of Governments, who are addicted to their daily fix of tabloid admiration by promoting policies that appear to be tough. I get tired of reading press releases on law and order from the Government and from the previous Government in which one can hardly get to the third or fourth sentence without finding the word "tough".
I ask the Government to study the report and come up with intelligent policies, instead of retreating to the comfort blanket of daily adoration from the tabloid press.

Mr. Bob Russell: Clearly, the best alternative to prison sentences is for people not to be put in the position of facing a prison sentence in the first place. The soundbite of being tough on the causes of crime deserves better than to be abandoned now that it has served its pre-election purpose.
I welcome the report. As one of the Committee's members, I stress the fact that every recommendation had unanimous, all-party support. I fear that Parliament is failing to address the need to formulate linked policies that will help to create a society in which there is less crime, and consequently less need even to consider sending so many people to prison.
As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, the need to gaol some people for serious and repeat offences is not at issue, but the record number of prisoners that was reached earlier this year is unacceptable. The statement in the Government's response that
Prison should be used only where necessary
is to be welcomed. How will that message be conveyed to the courts?
I am in favour of joined-up government: matters affecting our daily lives should not be put into self-contained compartments, and there should be more understanding and consideration of how decisions in one area will affect activities elsewhere. Government and society generally need to adopt an holistic approach.
What will be the Government's definition of success regarding the statement that Labour will be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime? Being tough on crime presumably means that more people will end up in prison, while being tough on the causes of crime suggests that fewer people will drift into a life of crime. The prison population has increased by more than 5,000 in the past year; does the Minister agree that that suggests that the Government are failing to deliver on their promise to be tough on the causes of crime?
Apart from some of the former communist countries, Britain has a higher proportion of its population in prison than anywhere else in Europe: nearly 120 in every 100,000. I know that the Government want the United Kingdom to play a leading role in the European Union, but is the Minister proud of the fact that we are the current champions of the European prison league and are set to retain the title for the foreseeable future?
It is not an exaggeration to say that our prison system is in crisis. Paradoxically, it is a growth industry, and career prospects seem good—for prison staff, at any rate. The Home Secretary's millennium project appears to be to build several more prisons at £60 million a time to accommodate the unacceptably large numbers being sent to prison. No doubt those involved in the private prison sector, and promoters of the private finance initiative, are enthusiastically urging the Government to follow the example of the American privatised prisons. I suggest that we would do better to adopt what Finland has done in recent years to reduce its prison population while keeping crime levels in check.
In the past five years, the UK prison population has increased by more than 50 per cent., from 43,200 to 66,273 as at 4 December. It is good news that the previous estimate of a prison population of more than 82,000 by 2005 has recently been revised downwards, but even if next year's predicted figure of 63,200 proves correct, it will still leave Britain with a prison population out of step with most other developed countries. That is an appalling situation, and we must all endeavour to rectify it.
On financial grounds alone, the House should be united in wanting to see fewer people being sent to prison. In 1997–98, the annual average cost of keeping someone in

prison was £23,000, which is a terrible waste of public money when one considers the cheaper and better alternatives to prison for people who receive relatively short sentences. That figure is not the true cost, but only the amount that comes from the Prison Service budget. To be added to that figure are any housing and social security benefits to which prisoners' families may be entitled, miscellaneous other costs and the loss of taxes and other contributions to the Exchequer that someone not in prison would pay if he or she had a job. For those in young offenders institutions, the cost soars to more than £30,000 a year for each person in custody.
The huge increase in the number of young people ending up in prison is especially worrying. From 1996 to 1997, the number increased by 12 per cent. to an average 10,800 over the year. In the same period, the number of women prisoners rose by 19 per cent., to 2,680. Currently, 53 babies are in prison with their mothers.
The evidence shows that prison is not working. The Home Affairs Committee's report addresses the need to tackle the prison time-bomb, and I had hoped that the Government would accept all the unanimous recommendations in the Committee's report. I am keen to see suspended sentences, curfew orders and electronic tagging for those who are convicted of less serious crimes and who are not a danger to society. I also feel that the introduction of criminal work orders—a title that more accurately reflects the reason why someone is doing the task that he or she has been directed by the courts to undertake, instead of the somewhat cosy-sounding community sentence, which implies some involvement with a voluntary organisation—would be another alternative to prison that should be developed, but to be credible they must be enforced stringently.
I am disappointed by the Government's negative response to the concept of weekend prisons, as unanimously recommended by the Committee. I urge the Minister to take an enlightened and positive step forward and introduce, as soon as possible, a pilot scheme to see how that innovative idea would work, as suggested by Sir David Ramsbotham, the chief inspector of prisons.

Mr. Mullin: The Committee recommended only that the Government consider weekend prisons, because the idea has serious logistical problems.

Mr. Russell: The Chairman of the Committee is correct, and that is borne out in the report and the Government's response. No one is saying that weekend prisons are an easy solution, but the Government should undertake a pilot scheme based on the suggestions from the chief inspector of prisons. Some of those who receive short prison sentences lose their jobs as a result. Their families then require housing and other benefits and, on release, the former prisoners often have difficulty finding work, with the consequence that they and their dependants continue to draw benefits. The public purse loses all round, and society has an ex-prisoner who may be tempted back into criminal ways.
As an alternative to full-time prison, someone who it is felt should still receive a short custodial sentence could be ordered to serve it at weekends, when his or her loss of liberty would arguably be most keenly felt. In that way, the individual could keep working and paying his or her way in the community. A criminal who might otherwise be gaoled


for 28 days, could be sentenced to serve 14 weekends from Friday evening to Sunday teatime, undertaking rehabilitation, retraining, environmental projects or other constructive activities under the auspices of the Prison Service. Most people would regard the loss of 14 weekends as more of a punishment than serving 28 days consecutively.
Our overcrowded prisons are universities of crime. Prisoners are locked up for hours on end with opportunities for education, work, rehabilitation and recreation periods reduced because of past spending cuts. The consequence is that many prisoners return to society better trained as criminals than when they went to gaol. More leave prison addicted to drugs, and more leave with AIDS than arrived with it. Prison suicides have increased. There have been 74 self-inflicted deaths this year—more than in each of the past three years. Does the Minister think that prison is the right place for the estimated 28,000 prisoners who suffer from mental health or drugs problems?
The amount of what is called purposeful activity provided for prisoners has fallen to less than 24 hours a week on average. What plans does the Minister have to reverse the cuts? Does he agree that one of the best ways to reduce reoffending is to develop constructive regimes in prisons, with the focus on rehabilitation, retraining, education and work? Will he give an assurance that, after years of cuts by the previous Government, the probation service will be given the necessary resources for the critical role that it has to play?
Up to 90,000 offenders are released from custody into the community every year. Some 53 per cent. are reconvicted within two years, but the figure for young offenders is 75 per cent. and for juveniles, 89 per cent. The alternatives to prison sentences advanced by the Home Affairs Committee would result in fewer people going to gaol in the first place, and I am confident that they would lead to less reoffending.
The most effective long-term alternative to prison sentences is for the Government to adopt an holistic approach, especially to young people. Some 50 per cent. of known offenders are under 21, and 70 per cent. of adult offenders were convicted of a criminal offence before they were 21. The knowledge that most of those in prison committed their first offence before their 21st birthday makes it imperative that measures are taken to prevent youngsters from taking those first steps on the criminal ladder.
To target youth crime, however, we need to do more than deal with the situation when it arises, which is a classic example of looking at a situation in isolation. Slicing up life into compartments is a recipe for creating conditions in which criminal activity will result. An obvious example is housing. Bad housing is not an excuse for criminal activity—some of the worst criminals come from wealthy backgrounds—but poor housing can provide a breeding environment for criminal activity. More needs to be done to improve the nation's housing provision.
Does the Minister feel that his crusade to reduce the number of prisoners is helped when the Department for Education and Employment, and others, concentrate on demanding ever higher academic standards, without appreciating that many youngsters need greater

encouragement in non-academic areas? We need to give equal importance to the different contributions that all young people can make to their communities. For many young people, there is more to life than the classroom and swotting. The Government should tell all young people that they have a contribution to make to society, regardless of their academic abilities.

Mr. Corbett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that, because young people grow up in deprived areas with high and persistent levels of unemployment, their schools, teachers, school governors and parents should say that it is not worth bothering to encourage those children to do better than they think they can.

Mr. Russell: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I was trying to make the exactly opposite point. I want us all to tell all young people that they are of value to society and have a contribution to make. I am criticising the idea that the only people of value are those who gain high academic achievement. I do not believe that that is true, and I do not believe that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) thinks so, either.
A major way in which to reduce criminal activity by young people, and therefore to reduce the prison population, would be for relevant Departments to take measures to encourage youngsters to become more involved in their communities. That would give them pride in their neighbourhoods and a belief that they were valued.
For example, instead of underfunding local government, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions could make specific grants to enable uniformed and other youth organisations to have free use of school buildings, rather than being driven out of them by high charges. The Ministry of Defence could offer better funding for cadet forces, so that they could expand and recruit more youngsters. The Department for Education and Employment could provide financial support for youth bands or arts projects. Encouragement for conservation and similar projects could involve more young people.
Financial investment in our young people will pay dividends. Better citizens will result if we abandon the previous Government's view that there is no such thing as society. There would be less cost later to the public purse if fewer people drifted into crime and had to be sent to prison. The more we can do to stop people committing crime, the lower the prison population will be. The best alternative to prison sentences is to fund youth activities, which would be a much better use of public money than spending £23,000 a year for everyone in prison. Keeping just 44 people out of prison would save £1 million, and we can all think of how that money could be more productively invested in young people and local communities.
There is an opinion that young people involved in uniformed and other activities are far less likely to be involved in criminal activity than those who do not experience such productive and organised activities. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that that is true. If he does not have the evidence, may I suggest that we survey young people currently serving custodial sentences? I am confident that investing substantially in recognised youth movements and encouraging youngsters to participate


would result in fewer young people drifting into criminal or anti-social behaviour. Such expenditure would be cost-effective.
The best way in which to achieve joined-up government for young people would be the appointment of a Minister for youth. That person would need to be popular and charismatic in the eyes of young people. An obvious candidate would be the Minister of State himself.
As a first step towards reducing the UK prison population, the Home Affairs Committee's recommendations should be implemented. However, I urge the Minister to take a wider view of what should be done if we are seriously and realistically to tackle crime. Being tough on the causes of crime is a positive way in which to provide an alternative to prison sentences.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Following my experiences during the inquiry, I thank the probation service, the social services, the police, the fire service and a raft of voluntary organisations, and I congratulate them on working with such commitment and dedication on our behalf. They try to give more hope and meaning to the lives of vulnerable and disjointed young people. Their jobs are not easy, because many of the people with whom they deal come from the most horrendous backgrounds. About a third of those sent to young offenders' institutions have no contact with home. About 40 per cent. have bad or intermittent contact with home. Many have no regular place to lay their heads at night. We should not underestimate the problems that we ask the various agencies to cope with for us.
My approach to the report and to the Government's response is that the argument is not over whether prison is better than non-custodial community sentences. There is widespread recognition that only custodial sentences will suffice for some people before the courts, especially for those who use violence against vulnerable people such as women, children and the elderly. It is not well understood, however, that the main victims of violence are, surprisingly, young people themselves. They are seen to be the perpetrators of most violence, but it is not so. They are in fact the victims.
That said, I have reached the conclusion that too many of those responsible for handing out sentences in our various courts are unaware of the menu of options available for community and non-custodial sentences. No doubt they are influenced by silly headlines in newspapers that ought to be more responsible. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has said, it is wrong for newspapers to say that "so-and-so walks free". A community sentence is not walking free.
Mr. Vinnie Jones, the footballer, perhaps best demonstrates that fact. Having been sentenced for a cruel and grievous assault on a neighbour, Mr. Jones found that some publicity attached to the first hours of his community service. Perhaps Mr. Jones is unused to having his photograph taken, but he failed to turn up on three occasions, and instructed his solicitor to return to court to try to have his community service order reduced. I am glad that the court took the opposite view: it lengthened his sentence, and fined him for not doing what he was bound to do.
Mr. Jones, and anyone else in such a situation, should not accept a community service order if they prefer the alternative of prison. It is their choice, and they are free to make it, even if the courts may regret that fact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South has mentioned that Mr. Peter Coad, a senior probation officer who had a low opinion of the probation service's achievements, said that the best alternative to prison was not to commit a crime. I took his meaning to be that the best alternative was not to be found committing the crime as well as not committing it. That is, of course, true: it is a blinding glimpse of the obvious, but solutions are not as easy as that.
During the general election—I suspect many of my colleagues found the same thing—in every part of my constituency, groups of residents raised the issue of anti-social behaviour and crime. They did not see those problems in party political terms, and they expected whatever Government were elected—it happened to be my party's Government—to help them to reclaim the right to live in peace and security in and around their homes. That is a simple enough demand. However, more police officers, more people in prison and longer sentences will not deliver it. They may make a contribution, but they will not deliver it.
Two stories from my constituency will illustrate the point. On a main road, a dreadful three-storey block of flats containing 20 or so families, with walkways on the outside, was an absolute shambles. The council decided to spend money on doing up the block, and letters went out to say that this, that and the other would be done in six months' time, and that the council would try not to wake the baby or anyone working nights.
All went well. There was landscaping, and the whole thing looked great. Towards the end of the work, I wrote to each resident to say how nice the work looked and that if they were having a party, I would bring some beer. I was not looking for votes; the matter was too important for that. I wanted to encourage those people to be proud of what had happened in and around their homes. The whole area had been transformed. Eighteen months later, it was almost as bad as it was before the work started. The lesson that I drew from that—I agreed with Birmingham city council housing officers on this—is that unless residents feel that they own the process, there is no point in proceeding.
I invite hon. Members to come with me about four miles further south in my constituency, to the former Castle Bromwich airfield, where 12,000 Spitfires, made over the road in what is now the Jaguar car factory, were personally flown by the chief test pilot. The site became the Castle Vale housing estate, which comprises 34 tower blocks and dozens of blocks of maisonettes. Anyone wanting to see a hell-hole should have seen Castle Vale 12 or 15 years ago. It embodied what I felt merited the description "civic pigsty".
Anyone coming across Castle Vale for the first time found it hard to believe what he was seeing—at least, I did. One wondered who cared for such places. Certainly, no one on the city council cared. I know all about cuts in housing budgets and so on, but I am not interested in that—there is some money. The whole place shouted total and absolute neglect. There was then an offer to set up one of only six housing action trusts in the country.
HATs were set up by the previous Government, who, by the way, had the wit and wisdom to change the rules to enable tenants, at the end of the exercise, to hold a ballot on whether they wanted to have the city council back as their landlord or, as I hope will happen in the Castle Vale area, to set up their own tenant management organisation.
When it came to the ballot, 93 per cent. of the tenants who participated voted for the HAT, which meant that about £300 million of public and private money would be put into the area. That was four years ago. I picked up a point made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) in this connection. We are now four years into the process. The eight great centre tower blocks, which is where the main Spitfire runway was, have gone. Not quite 12 months ago, the first buildings of the new Castle Vale became visible because they were on the central site. In a matter of weeks, the whole atmosphere of the estate changed, and I shall illustrate that with two examples.
First, I am very proud of the four primary schools on the estate, which is why I said what I did to the hon. Member for Colchester. Those schools achieve miracles. They regularly turn out children to go to the secondary school on the estate at the age of 11 with average reading ages of 14 and 15. It is difficult to get through the front door of one school because of all the national awards that it has won, not in soft subjects, but for mathematics marathons and achievements in science. The remarkable head teacher and her staff say that of course such things can be done, but that one has to work two or three times harder in such areas than in areas with less deprivation.
Secondly, the HAT was never wholly, solely or mainly about bricks and mortar, important though they are. It was about giving people back hope, training and jobs; it was about one-to-one counselling for single parents—mainly mothers—and the work of outstanding organisations such as Home Start, which will quietly hold out a hand to parents in despair. Parents might be in despair because of deprivation or unemployment, but also because they feel that they cannot cope and cannot bring up their children in the way they want. Home Start literally holds out a hand. When another hand is put in it, it gently grasps that hand. The success of that organisation can be measured by the fact that many of its regular volunteers once came through the door, holding out a hand.
What has happened on the estate in the past 12 or 18 months that makes me so proud? I am told—I am sure that it is true—that, if an autopsy were carried out on me, the words "Castle Vale" would be found engraved on my heart. Crime has been reduced by about a third, but I do not say that with surprise. I would expect that to be the case. It is almost as if people have grown a foot in height after getting jobs.
A magnificent range of about two dozen to 30 firms, large and small—including the Jaguar plant, Cincinnati, the machine tool manufacturer, and GKN Hardy Spicer, which makes front-wheel drives—on the rim of this isolated island estate are offering young people opportunities through the new deal. I am not criticising the Opposition when I say that—it might also be their experience—but, in this part of Birmingham, the new deal has not only held out a lifeline to young people who were detached and who were denied hope, but it has delivered.
I commend the Government on agreeing with the Committee about the importance of alternatives to custodial sentences. It might seem that I am going to say the opposite, but I ask to House to bear with me. The Kingstanding part of my constituency is virtually one large housing estate. There is nothing new in what I am about to say. On that estate, there is someone who is a one-man, anti-social crime wave. Let us call him John, although the warders now know him by his real name. Between the ages of 14 and 18, he was charged 34 times and was given the equivalent of three and three quarter years in young offenders' institutions. He was also handed heaven knows how many community service orders of one sort or another. As I understand it, he is in prison—and so he should be, given the opportunities that were offered to him but not taken.
I suppose that the easy thing to say is that John had his chance and did not take it, but I have to tell Mr. Coad and others who share his views that life is not like that. When I feel close to despair about such things, it is because of what the great city of Birmingham has achieved this year alone. It has been host to the G8 summit, the Eurovision song contest and 34,000 members of Lions International. It is a city where things are happening. I am getting parochial, but I get cross and frustrated when people like John cannot see that this involves them and that there is something in it for them.
We cannot walk away from the Johns of this world, because they cost everyone of my constituents something. They cost them in fear, because my constituents will not answer the door after dark and will not walk down the street after 3 pm at this time of year. Solutions have to be found. The probation service is now on the case—one might have hoped that it could have got on board earlier—and is involved in, for example, the "what works" programme. We need to design and carry out these programmes in such a way that they have better prospects of offering young people the opportunity to lead more successful and fulfilling lives. The new deal can help.
The hon. Member for Colchester has mentioned pupils being pushed at school to make them believe that they can attain more than they have. That is doubly important at schools where 60 or 70 per cent. of the pupils come from families poor enough to receive free school meals—their future is at stake, as well as that of those who come from a more comfortable background. We owe those pupils something, but there is more to it than that. This country, our society, and certainly the city of Birmingham need to engage them. We need their skills, and they need them to help them to settle into a happier, more fulfilling way of life.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am sure that the whole House enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). It was a remarkable personal contribution to the debate, and one full of emotion. I went misty-eyed when I heard mention of 12,000 Spitfires, quite apart from what he told us about the transformation of the Castle Vale estate as a result of the housing action trust.
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Minister for Housing and Planning, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), when HATs


were put in place. I hope that this will not be my only opportunity to remind the House that the Conservative party made important contributions to the improvement of our country. I think that all hon. Members who have HATs in their constituencies will recognise the important changes that HATs have brought about for the better.
The trouble with the debate is that it is largely well informed. It is calm and sometimes moving, as exemplified by the speech of the hon. Member for Erdington. It is therefore guaranteed to have no media coverage. We are among friends talking to ourselves. The outside world will not be listening, because we are not at one mother's throats.
I reject completely the idea that the Select Committee's report is soft and that it represents an attempt by an all-party Committee to come up with a soft option for criminals. It is an extremely hard-hitting report, and it deserves to be seen as such. I shall detain the House for a moment by quoting some examples and putting them on the record. There are too many people outside the House who have tried to read into the report that the Committee has been anxious to empty prisons—I speak rather crudely—to put prisoners on community service orders. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Committee's second conclusion and recommendation reads:
Prison will always be necessary for the most dangerous and/or persistent criminals, but it must be closely targeted on them, with other offenders being given non-custodial sentences which are effective and in which sentencers and the public have confidence.
Those are extremely important riders to our suggestion about the role of non-custodial sentences.
Recommendation 15 reads:
Strict enforcement of community sentences is vital if they are to represent a credible alternative to prison and retain the confidence of sentencers and the public. If community sentences are to be credible they must be enforced stringently.
Recommendation 16 states:
It is essential that offenders who breach community sentences are returned to court quickly.
Recommendation 18 says:
We … recommend that the Home Office rectify this situation"—
of breaches not being enforced—
and ensure that offenders who flagrantly breach the terms of community sentences may be sent to prison".
This is a tough report, not a soft one. I hope that, by citing these examples, I can provide the House and those outside with evidence that it is tough. This may be a small point, but it is one worth noting: we were much impressed with the Lord Chief Justice's suggestion that community service orders should be renamed. He suggested that they should be called criminal work orders, and we supported him. I note that the Government have said that they are prepared to consider that suggestion. We hope that the Minister will make the debate a little more newsworthy by saying that he accepts that suggestion at least. That would send out the clearest possible message that community service orders are intended to be nothing other than criminal work orders.
For so long as society believes in the concept of repentance and forgiveness, offenders will have to return to the community at some point. We shall have to deal with their return and with what we do with them in the

meantime. I said to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that I had some sympathy with Mr. Coad. One of Mr. Coad's points was that, if offenders are in gaol, they cannot go out burgling people's property and causing them enormous distress. That is an irrefutable fact. However, if the prison population is to increase to 200,000, certain consequences have to be considered.
There is the small matter of planning consent for new prisons. We all know that, as soon as anyone proposes having a prison anywhere near us, our constituents are on our backs, saying, "Not on your life, guv'nor. You jolly well fight it." Tripling the prison population space would require considerable dexterity in the manipulation of planning regulations. The previous Conservative Government found a disused ship somewhere, which they parked off the south coast of England. That was one way of getting around the problem of people and their backyards. Presumably, in that instance, they were not too worried.
We must consider whether prison is the only answer to crime. Manifestly it is not, so what are the options? We, the Committee, were struck by the many schemes that were being tried out throughout the country. I think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South said that there were 274.

Mr. Mullin: No, 267.

Mr. Howarth: There is a huge number of schemes, many of which are not well known to the public.
One of our important conclusions is set out in recommendation 9. We found that there was no real assessment—the hon. Member for Sunderland, South mentioned this—of the true effectiveness of these schemes. I think that the Home Office has taken note of that. I should like to say, in answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), that I think that he had a fair point. The Government say, "We quite understand. The Committee is right on this and action needs to be taken, and we will be taking it. Things are a bit better."
I urge the Minister to take serious note of recommendation 9. If non-custodial sentences are to command public confidence, it is essential that they are evaluated on the basis that some are good, some are not so good and others are a waste of space. There will be inevitably an element of trialling. It will be necessary to suck it and see before deciding whether certain schemes will work.
Recommendation 9 reads:
The absence of rigorous assessment of the effectiveness of community sentences is astonishing. Without it confidence in them must be limited and sentencing policy a matter of guess-work and optimism.
That is strong language for a Select Committee. We state in print that we find it astonishing that there is that lack of effectiveness in the validation and assessment of community sentence schemes. I hope that the Minister will devote some attention to our recommendation.
The members of the Committee will know that I had already had wind of the interesting airborne initiative Scotland scheme. I probably had something of a reputation for being fairly tough on crime before the Government came up with "tough on crime, tough on criminals and tough on the causes of crime". However, I


see cases for not banging up people in gaol as a knee-jerk reaction. There is a case for other schemes, and I was most impressed by the airborne initiative scheme in Scotland, as I was by other schemes that I came across throughout the country. It was noticeable that, where a scheme provided young offenders, in particular, with an element of self-respect and self-confidence—two key factors which had been entirely missing in their lives by virtue of their upbringing and background—they were capable of being rescued. I suggest that a key criterion in assessing the effectiveness of these schemes is whether they are able to instil in persistent young offenders a sense of self-respect and a sense of purpose in life.
We were able to see the operation of the tagging scheme. I am bound to say that at this stage I want to be a bit mischievous. We were all impressed by tagging, which we saw Securicor operating in Manchester. I thought that it was superb, but I shall not bore the House with the details.
I said that I intended to be mischievous. I remind the House that, when the matter was proposed by my noble Friend Lord Patten, who was then Minister of State, Home Department, his opposite number, the then shadow Home Secretary, Lord Hattersley, who is now clad in Irvine, or rather, ermine, in another place—a Freudian slip there, I fear—responded by saying:
Electric tagging would be a farce if it were ever implemented in this country."—[Official Report, 20 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 160.]
In Committee, during detailed consideration of electronic monitoring, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who was then a Front-Bench spokesman, said:
Opposition Members oppose the provisions on electronic monitoring with no equivocation whatever. We are totally opposed to electronic monitoring of offenders and on this issue, we have the overwhelming support of organisations working within the criminal justice system."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 18 December 1990; c. 273.]
I should like to hear from the Minister an acknowledgement that the Labour party, when in opposition, got it wrong, and that it now congratulates the Conservative Government on having introduced a non-custodial sentence that has been of huge benefit. As that system is to go nationwide from the end of next year, I am sure that the Government will not be able to deny that.
I shall not detain the House too long, but I shall deal with a couple of other topics. The first is drugs, a subject that the Select Committee will address in more detail in our next examination. I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) on the matter. Drugs are a scourge in our country. Parents throughout the land have a paranoid fear that their child will fall foul of drugs and, even worse, that they will not recognise the signs. I have three children and I understand that fear, which is widespread.
Drugs kill people. They imprison young people for the rest of their lives. I hope that the Government will consider the matter carefully and accept that, if we are to deal with the problem, there must be an element of compulsion about it. When we travelled around the country during our inquiry, one of the saddest experiences was our visit to Dumbarton, where we sat with a group

of youngsters who were hard drug addicts. They required £80 a day to fund their heroin habit, and to obtain the money they stole and burgled. One of the girls told us that, when she left our company, she was going to steal from a shop in order to fund the habit.
I do not believe that simply banging up such people in prison is the answer. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. We need specialised residential institutions where those young people can be detoxified. That is the only way in which we will resolve the problem. It is draconian, but the crisis we face is of such magnitude that a draconian measure is justified. We would be ducking our responsibilities as Members of Parliament were we not to tackle the issue head on.
Other factors have not been discussed in detail in the debate. The minor crimes described by the hon. Members for Sunderland, South and for Erdington irritate our constituents and cause them grief. Minor vandalism and such offences are, in my view, the result of a growing lack of respect for parents, authority and our institutions. It is incumbent on us all to teach children not their rights, but their duties. The time has come to swing the pendulum back and to make them understand their duties and responsibilities.
As members of the Committee know, the other day I saw two young boys aged 14 breaking into my neighbour's car with a metal implement. Those were two kids out of school at lunchtime, walking down the street on the off-chance, but armed, with intent. What do we do about people like that? I understand that they came from respectable households. They have been let off with a caution. It was only because I got there, chased them down the road and caught up with one of them that we cleared up that bit of crime.
I should tell the Minister that I was appalled by the attitude of some other adults, who would not help me for fear that they would be charged with abusing children. I hope that he will say that the Government do not approve of that, and that they approve of members of the public going to assist the police.
I hope that those outside will recognise that this is a tough report. Alternatives to custody are designed not simply to empty the prisons, but to provide tough and hard sentences. They are perhaps the only way in which we shall get young offenders weaned off drugs and reduce the crimes that are spawned as a result of drug taking. In that way, we shall make our society better.

Mr. Edward Garnier: One of the advantages of attending debates such as this is that one leaves the Chamber at the end of the debate having learned something. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) for giving us a little tour of his constituency and telling us something about the conditions of the people whom he represents.
I remember speaking after the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) in the Second Reading debate on the Crime and Disorder Bill and being struck, and even appalled, by what she told us about the rate of crime in her constituency. If I remember correctly, the figures that she gave for crime in her constituency during the week preceding the debate were the equivalent of the crime figures in my constituency for the previous decade.
Our constituencies are entirely different. I represent a largely rural and well-to-do area. We have our criminal statistics. We have people who buy, sell and use drugs, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Erdington for bringing me out of my rather comfortable existence and making me realise that England is a diverse country. Although we pass Acts of Parliament that are supposed to deal uniformly with the entire country, there are places that need special attention and particular measures to assist.
I am fortunate to participate in the debate because it gives me the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his promotion. As many hon. Members know, he had my job not long ago—the shadow spokesman on the Lord Chancellor's Department—so it seems that my political life is not entirely without hope.
I congratulate the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the other hon. Members who serve on it and their Clerks on their industry in producing the report on alternatives to prison sentences. As a member of the Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Ivan Lawrence from 1992 until the end of 1994, when I left on my appointment as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Sir A. Goodlad) and for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) in the Foreign Office, I always take a particular interest in the Committee's reports and activities.
I am a quiet admirer of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, although it may not do him any good for me to say so, for his work in bringing to wider public attention a number of criminal cases of miscarriages of justice. Some of that work that he did in collaboration with my late predecessor, Sir John Farr. They were, as the House will agree, unlikely collaborators, one being a traditional Conservative landowner of the old school and the other a Labour journalist and writer. It was a common interest in justice and fairness that brought them together. I hope that the same interest breaches the political divide this evening. Certainly, from all that I know of John Farr and what he did to see justice in the case of the Birmingham Six, I believe that he would have taken a close interest in the work that the Chairman and members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs are doing.
It behoves us all to keep a close eye on those matters that we sometimes take for granted: free and uninhibited access to the courts for every citizen; an impartial and incorruptible judiciary; a jury system that commands public confidence; lawyers who cannot be bought and sold and who can speak up for their clients without fear for their lives or careers; and—germane to our discussions—a criminal justice system that is capable of acquitting the innocent while dealing with the guilty humanely and firmly, but sensibly, and in such a way that the public are satisfied that they can sleep easy in their beds knowing that right has been done, and offenders know that they have got their just desserts and punishment that fits the crime.
I have been an assistant recorder in the Crown court for only a short time. My practice at the Bar could not be further removed from the criminal courts, but in the short time that I have been doing my judicial training—in court, sitting beside Crown court judges; on residential courses, run by the Judicial Studies Board; and sitting as a judge—I have been struck by the attitude of those on the Bench.

They will do all in their power to avoid sending a defendant to prison, if a suitable alternative can be found and is available.
Judges do not send the guilty to prison because they enjoy depriving people of their liberty. Certainly by the time that they come to sentence, and often beforehand, judges know the backgrounds and family circumstances of the accused, and they see real people before them in the dock: the incompetent, the drug-addicted, the inadequate and the feckless, in human form. They also see the evil, the dangerous and the dishonest.
Whatever the characteristics, judges deal most often with a man, usually in his late teens or early 20s—in London or other big cities, he will probably be a drug user—who is in any event unemployed and in receipt of state benefits. He will probably be the father of at least one small child by a mother who is not his wife, and with whom he does not live in anything resembling a traditional family. He may have grown up in circumstances that mirror his children's.
That is the picture of human life facing the judge. It is a daily experience. In the House of Commons we see only the statistics about projected prison populations, reoffending rates and the expense of dealing with the never-ending parade of crimes and criminals. We see the story that is unfolding outside at a safe remove. We know what we are told and what we believe. We come here with our prejudices and our experiences, but we are unlikely to have shared the experiences of either the criminal or the sentencer.
Perhaps one of my prejudices—this relates to an intervention by the hon. Member for Erdington on the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South—is the belief that people who have a job tend not to commit crimes, but that unemployment of itself is not an excuse for committing crimes. There is a link—a correlation—between unemployment and criminality, but there is not a causal link. There should not be.
My first point beyond those happy introductory remarks is that it would do no harm—and, I believe, a lot of good—if Home Office and other Ministers charged with management of our criminal justice system, and with devising policies to improve it, spent time in the criminal courts to see for themselves what is involved in trying and sentencing a case. Ministerial visits to prisons, court buildings, probation offices and police stations are worth while, but they provide only a partial picture.
Ministers should go to see what happens to the defendant, the witness, the jury, the court staff and the judge or the magistrate in the stage between arrest and punishment, and then consider whether the criminal justice Bills that we pass almost annually are always the answer to the real or perceived problems that we face.
I was struck, as was the hon. Member for Erdington, with the evidence that is recounted at paragraph 134 of the Select Committee report. It deals with Lord Bingham's wish that sentencers should visit community sentence venues to see what is happening. The report states:
He undertook to encourage judges to make such visits but reminded the Committee"—
I urge the House to bear this in mind as well—
that 'judges are under great pressure to try cases. The courts have a backlog, they are open to criticism if the delays build up, so this kind of activity has to get fitted in. It should be fitted in and I totally agree with the point that you'"—


the hon. Member for Sunderland, South—
are making that this is a valuable way of educating oneself into the realities of what one is imposing on others'.
One has to be realistic about that. As the learned Lord Chief Justice said, our courts are enduring a backlog of cases. Judges simply do not have time to make these visits, although they would do much good were they able to do so. I urge the Government, hon. Members and members of the Select Committee not to push too much on our judges, who are already overburdened. It is easy to make tabloid remarks about judges, but they are not as they are caricatured. They work hard, and requiring them to spend more time out of court looking at probation centres and so forth—although well intended—cannot easily be achieved.
On the subject of the Lord Chief Justice, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), and others who have referred to it, that it would be better and more publicly acceptable to describe community sentences as criminal work orders. I hope that the Government will give that rapid consideration.
My second point is that another thing that might be learned is that the system by which those who breach probation orders or other community sentences are returned to court is cumbersome and slow. A defendant who breaks the terms of the sentence has to be summonsed to appear at a magistrates court, irrespective of whether the sentence was handed down in the Crown court.
I have read that part of the report which deals with the return of offenders to court—indeed, I have read the whole report—and I accept and agree with conclusion and recommendation 16, save that I have reservations about the civilianisation of that aspect of the criminal justice system. I also agree with conclusion 18, about the steps that should be taken to reinvigorate that part of the community sentence regime, but I have a small practical solution to offer. Those who breach community sentences from the Crown court should be arrested and brought back directly to the Crown court, rather than being summonsed to appear before a magistrates court to be dealt with.
By the time that the summons is served—we know about the difficulties in effecting service—and the defendant appears before the magistrates, the original defence is part of distant history, the trial was some time ago and the breach is remote. If magistrates then decided to remand the defendant to the Crown court to be dealt with, we would face yet further delay.
Far better to cut out that circuitous route by sending the malefactor straight back to the sentencing Crown court. I wrote to the Home Secretary about that two or three weeks ago. I dare say that General Pinochet has been rather more on his mind than my letter, but I hope that either the Minister of State or the Home Secretary will in due course provide me with an answer that makes sense.
I am rapidly running out of time, but I want briefly to flag up one or two other points. Conclusion 20 of the Select Committee report deals with pre-sentence reports. My experience, for what it is worth, is that probation officers make it clear in drafting such reports that, if there is no available remedy other than custody, custody will be the one that they recommend. They are no longer shy

about making that recommendation. I hope that the House and the Home Affairs Committee will take that point from me.
I urge the Government not to be persuaded by any argument that the probation service should have its name changed to some modern, "relevant" or "cool" title. We all understand the term "probation service". It would be sensible to have a national service, and I trust that that can be looked at carefully, but there is absolutely no need whatever to change the name of the service.
I support conclusion 36, about better use of suspended prison sentences. They are a weapon in our criminal justice system that has been allowed to fall away. I hope that the Government will bring them back.
At the risk of sounding fatalistic, I draw attention to paragraph 46 of the Select Committee report. Simply because of time constraints, I shall not refer to it in detail, save to draw the House's attention to the headline "Reoffending, deterrence and rehabilitation". The two-year reconviction rate for all types of sentence is horribly high. It is more than 50 per cent. and for some sentences as high as 74 per cent. That applies to probation orders with the requirement to attend a probation centre.
Thus, nothing that we are suggesting or considering provides the perfect answer. I simply ask that the Government look calmly and sensibly at this excellent report, and I urge all hon. Members not to bully judges into producing speedy answers to impossible questions.

Mr. Martin Linton: I listened carefully to what the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said about magistrates and judges. I also listened with great interest to the speeches of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who is a judge, and my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who is a magistrate. I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee but have no experience whatever in the criminal justice system. Although that is often a disadvantage, it is sometimes an advantage, because it means that I see the issues with fresh eyes.
I wish to concentrate for a few minutes on a rather buried aspect of the report. The report seeks to answer two questions: first, are community sentences effective; and, secondly, do sentencers make enough use of community sentences? The Committee drew attention to the Home Office research on that subject. When dealing with such an issue, the probation service is usually under examination and must answer questions on the effectiveness of community sentences. However, the magistracy and the judiciary should also be under the spotlight.
One of the tables produced by the Home Office research study shows that magistrates were asked whether they were satisfied with the work of the probation service, and 89 per cent. said that they were very or quite satisfied. The same figure applied to stipendiaries, and 85 per cent. of judges were satisfied. It is therefore wrong to say that people within the criminal justice system are greatly dissatisfied with the probation service. However, if we put the question the other way round, and ask whether we should have complete confidence in, and satisfaction with, the magistracy and the judiciary, we may reach a different conclusion.
The Home Office also asked magistrates, stipendiaries and judges whether, in the previous two years, they had visited probation centres or community service placements. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough referred to that research. The survey showed that fewer than half the magistrates had visited a probation centre, and that 82 per cent. of stipendiaries had not visited a probation centre. More probation offices had been visited, but that is not surprising, as they are often in the court building.
Community sentences are the most common sentence. In the past two years, three quarters of the magistrates and judges, and 93 per cent. of stipendiaries, had not visited a community sentence placement or even seen one in operation.
Whatever the wisdom or otherwise of their sentences, it is asking for trouble to hand out a sentence when one has no recent experience of what it involves. We would find it extraordinary if the director of a food company had never tasted his products or if the director of a car company had never driven the car that the company produced, but very few of those who are essentially the directors of the criminal justice system bother to see for themselves the effect of the sentences that they hand out. I do not have the figures for the frequency of prison visits by magistrates, judges and stipendiaries, but one can have little confidence in them, given the frequency of their visits to probation centres.
The hon. and learned Member for Harborough quoted with approval Lord Bingham's comment to the Committee that it was desirable that people should look at what was happening, and that he was slightly surprised that more had not done so. When he gave evidence to the Committee, he went no further than to encourage judges to make more frequent visits. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that, although he agreed with that, we should not push judges because they were busy people.
If sentences are to be effective, sentencers must know what they are sentencing people to. The magistrates themselves say that. The Home Office research study asked magistrates and stipendiaries whether they ever learned about the outcome of the community sentences that they handed out, and 87 per cent. of magistrates said that they either never heard, or only occasionally heard, the outcome. The figure for stipendiaries was slightly lower because they are, after all, full-time. Even so, two thirds of them had either never heard of the outcome, or heard only occasionally.
Magistrates were then asked whether they needed to know more about the outcome of their cases—the very point made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. Two thirds of the magistrates accepted that they needed to know more, despite the fact that most of them had just admitted that they rarely knew anything about them. Thus, they see the fault in the system: they pass sentences without knowing what they are doing.
The Home Office has started community sentence demonstration projects in Shrewsbury and Teesside, one of which we visited, to try to make magistrates and judges more aware of the sentences that they hand out. The National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders pointed out that, unlike doctors, sentencers always see their failures return to court but never see their successes. If we are to have confidence in community sentences, it is absolutely vital that magistrates and judges take the trouble to visit placements so that they know what they are sentencing people to.

Mr. David Ruffley: This interesting debate and the report that gives rise to it are uppermost in our minds for one reason: the increase in the prison population and the estimates for that increase. Five years ago, some 43,000 people were in prison; in September this year, that figure rose to 66,000, and the projection for the next seven years is more than 82,000. That represents a serious problem for the Government by any standard, not least because of the resource implications for the Exchequer in funding such a potential expansion in prison capacity.
I shall focus my remarks on two questions. First, how have we reached this position, and what policies have this Government and the previous Government pursued to get us to this position? Secondly, what radical solutions, which would amount to alternatives to custodial sentences, have been outlined in the report?
I shall begin by summarising the main thrust of criminal justice policy in the past 10 years. On the one hand was the view that prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse—a view largely held by the former right hon. Member for Witney, now the noble Lord Hurd; on the other is the view that prison works—a view expounded by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I think that prison does work.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and other Labour Members because, in the three years until the general election, recorded crime fell by 10 per cent. The Government have been the happy beneficiary of that fall in recorded crime. They have not sought to reverse the policy that the previous Administration established to achieve that fall. The Minister is happy to endorse the sentencing regime that we put in place. If Labour Members are not happy with this tough sentencing regime and go for more soft disposals, the crime figures may not be pegged at present levels. That issue has not been addressed in the debate.

Ms Diane Abbott: Is not the point about criminal policy not whether solutions are hard or soft, but whether they are effective?

Mr. Ruffley: The hon. Lady is right. No one doubts that, in the three years to 1997, recorded crime fell. That fall in crime coincided with the implementation of a tougher sentencing regime by Home Office Ministers in the Conservative Administration. That was manifestly a policy of containment. It may sound crude, but we all know intuitively that, if hardened criminals are locked up, they are not on the streets committing crime. As a rough rule of thumb, it is estimated that two thirds of recorded crime is committed by one fifth of hard-core serial offenders, so a policy of containment goes some way towards cutting the crime rate. The evidence shows that that has happened—certainly up until 1997. I believe that the trend is a decline in the rate of increase of recorded crime.

Mr. Mullin: If the hon. Gentleman refers to my speech, he will find that I dealt with that point. I said that prison was effective as a form of containment, although it did not prevent people from offending when they were


released. A couple of other factors also account for the fall in crime. One is the 40 per cent. reduction in unemployment in the relevant period, and the other is the fact that policing in the past few years has been much more effective.

Mr. Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman is right. There have also been improvements in education and training. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), in his eloquent speech, spoke for everyone in the Chamber. Innovative youth projects—which in the jargon are referred to as diversionary disposals—better education and training, more economic activity and more job creation all contribute to a falling crime rate. It is not fair to characterise the view of Conservative Members as being that prison works, because there is much more to it than that. The argument has not been made that prison does not work. I do not want to labour the point, but tougher sentencing has resulted in a demonstrable fall in crime. That fall has coincided with a palpable change in sentencing policy.
There has been a change in culture, which is evident when politicians on both sides of the House talk about crime, responsibility and the causes of crime. I had a ringside seat in 1992–93 when I was a special adviser to the then Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). When we moved into the Home Office in 1992, we were warned by people whom I would broadly describe as on the right of the political spectrum that we would face a liberal conspiracy. It was said that a large part of the criminal justice establishment, some senior Home Office officials, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and the Howard League for Penal Reform were Guardian-reading, nut-cutlet-eating, open-toed sandalwearing—[Interruption.] This is a caricature. It was a widely held view that there was a liberal conspiracy to frustrate Conservative law and order policies. [Interruption.] The Minister of State may laugh, but I am describing the caricature: this is not necessarily my own view. It was a caricature, but it was not far off.
Many of the initiatives that the then Home Secretary wanted to take were frustrated. They were met with ill-concealed opposition from many civil servants and voluntary bodies. I could give hon. Members a long list of examples. For instance, little progress was made on the proposal for secure training centres, much to the annoyance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe. The proposal in the Criminal Justice Act 1993 that gave courts the power to take into account previous convictions when setting sentences was fiercely contested, as were provisions to introduce mandatory sentences for bail banditry and to make it an aggravating factor in any offence.

Ms Abbott: I cannot let those remarks about Home Office professionals pass. There is not, and never has been, a liberal conspiracy in the Home Office—merely people who have to deal with the facts and with the nitty-gritty of containing vast numbers of people. They have to look further than the next conference speech.

Mr. Ruffley: If a liberal conspiracy truly existed, it has now come to an end. The new Home Secretary has taken

on board lock, stock and barrel the tough law and order rhetoric—[Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but he knows as well as I do that the Home Secretary, in a well-publicised visit to New York, looked at radical and—dare I say it—right-wing law and order initiatives.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. Paul Boateng): indicated dissent.

Mr. Ruffley: The Minister dissents, but I am sure that he will not dispute the fact that the Home Secretary talked about getting squeegee merchants off the streets and about zero tolerance. That is a measure of the progress that the Conservative Administration made. We turned the tide, and made it acceptable to talk tough on law and order. The best evidence for that proposition is the language that the Home Secretary now uses, even if the Minister of State does not. Those are the facts.

Mr. James Clappison: This has been a good debate. I congratulate the Committee and its Chairman on their choice of this important subject for an inquiry, which has led to the debate. I recognise that much hard work has been put into the report. We have heard some interesting contributions, not least from my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Malins) for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). There have been interesting speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), did the House a service by opening the debate in a balanced way.
This is an important subject, because we need community sentences and alternatives to prison sentences that are effective and credible, and command the respect of sentencers and the public. To command respect, those sentences must be used in appropriate cases. They need to be tough, and must not be seen as a soft option. I apologise to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) for using the word "tough", but, in this context, I do not think that it will grab the tabloid headlines. Those sentences should, as far as possible, be rehabilitative.
Contrary to what may be believed in some quarters, the previous Government were, in my view, responsible for some creditable achievements in regard to community sentences. As the Select Committee noted, the Criminal Justice Act 1991 supplies the general framework for sentencing. The Act was not the perfect article when it was introduced; it needed some refinement, which it received. We heard some interesting observations from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds about the background to that refinement. Today, however, the Act is generally accepted, and was accepted by the Committee, as an appropriate framework.
It must be right for the public to be protected from people who commit serious offences, and those who put the public at risk of grave harm as a result of violent or sexual offences must be given long prison sentences. I was interested by much of the speech of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), but I must gently demur from what he said about what determines prison numbers. I believe that they should be determined by what is needed


to protect the public, rather than by any sort of international comparison or international league table. The protection of the public should be paramount.
When offences do not fall into the categories that I have described, the public, and sentencers, should feel confident about community sentences. It should be recognised, however, that even less serious offences—offences that do not fall into the categories outlined in the Criminal Justice Act—which sentencers do not consider call for immediate custodial sentences, are nevertheless serious in themselves. They are serious for members of the public in general and, in particular, for the victims. Members of the public, and specifically victims, need to be reassured that community sentences are effective and tough.
In recent years, we have seen a good deal of what I consider to be toughening of established community sentences. For instance, national standards for probation have been introduced. We have also seen the introduction—which I welcome—of new community sentences: new options for sentencers, and greater flexibility for them. Let me give two examples. Combination orders, to which the Committee referred, combine probation and community service. In paragraph 28, the Committee said of the orders:
First used in 1992, their use has increased each year since then.
That is because they have been seen to be effective in practice.
The other example, which has been mentioned in the debate, is that of curfew orders with electronic monitoring. Those orders, which have been pioneered in recent years, amount to a real deprivation of liberty for offenders, falling short of imprisonment. They require offenders to be in a certain place—usually their homes—for a certain length of time, and to be subject to electronic monitoring to ensure that happens. The orders have been given trials in three areas, and are now being extended to more. There is evidence—which the Committee identified—that they are seen as tough and effective. Perhaps the best evidence came from the deputy justices' clerk who said—he is quoted in paragraph 161 of the Committee's report—that the toughness of the disposal was shown by
the reluctance of solicitors to propose it as a sentencing option for their clients.
That is indeed good evidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot reminded us gently of the background to the introduction of electronic monitoring, and the advice that we received from certain quarters when it was introduced. I do not want to go too far down that road, but I recall that we received certain advice based on considerations of not just practicability but principle—as my hon. Friend rightly said.
We must enter one reservation about the proposed use of electronic monitoring today. We welcome the use of home curfew as a sentence in its own right, but not as a way of securing the release of those who have been sentenced to imprisonment. We feel—we made our view known during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Bill—that it cuts across the principle of honesty in sentencing: the principle that sentences should mean what they say. We fear that the use of home curfew in this way will affect public confidence in sentencing.
Let me now deal briefly with alternative community sentences for three particularly important groups of offenders. First, let me discuss female offenders,

who have already been mentioned today. The Committee noted that the female proportion of the prison population has been growing, and that growth has accelerated recently. In paragraph 225, it noted
the importance of providing alternatives to prison, and probation programmes in particular, which tackle the problems presented by women offenders specifically.
We welcome the Committee's attitude. The increase in the number of women in prison must be a matter of public concern. We note what the Government have said in their response, and we encourage their pathfinder programmes, but we hope that they will take the problem of women offenders seriously, and will consider what more can be done about it.
Another important category of offenders is drug misusers, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Woking rightly described as the biggest problem in the criminal justice system. Anyone who comes into much contact with the system will be driven to the same conclusion. Drug misuse is a serious matter. The Committee referred to the alarming extent of crime related to drug abuse. Its members visited Dumbarton, where they saw the despair that is caused by drug misuse and drug-related crime. Unhappily, they could have observed similar scenes in many other places throughout the United Kingdom.
In their response, the Government referred to a drug treatment and testing order, but that will not be fully available until 2000–01, and then only in the case of relatively serious offences. We think that there is good sense in the Committee's recommendation
that the Government make it an objective that all drug misusing offenders given community sentences have access to appropriate treatment.
It must be sensible to make treatment as widely available as possible where it is needed.
Another important subject is that of young offenders. We feel that there should be appropriate alternatives to custody, some of them tailor made for young offenders. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot made some good points about that. We all want good schemes that give youngsters self-confidence. I note that the Committee reached similar conclusions on a subject that is something of an interest of mine. In paragraph 191, it says that it
must note the continuing concerns raised by sentencers that there is inadequate provision of secure places for young offenders … Although a programme to expand the number of places was put in hand by the previous Government, the Home Office has estimated that the new places will not be sufficient to meet the demand.
I do not wish to introduce too discordant a note at this late stage, but I know that the Minister of State had some responsibility in this regard in his last ministerial job. I believe it was the Minister of State who told me, in a written answer, that the Government had provided six additional places for young offenders so far. Let me alert him to the fact that we shall be taking an interest in the subject. The Committee was right to note that sentencers are concerned about it.
The general issue of community sentences is important. We want constructive and effective alternatives to custodial sentences, which are substantive and sound in practice. The Committee did a great deal of work, and we recognise that. We note that the background is the "what works" debate. At this late stage, I shall not embark on a detailed evaluation of reconviction rates and what has been done in that regard, but I think I am entitled to make


one observation: the background is a falling crime rate. We want the rate to continue to fall, and we think that community sentences can make a contribution. We want sentences that command the confidence of sentencers and the public, and do not represent a soft option.
This is a worthwhile process of building on what has been achieved in the past, and we look forward to the toughening of community sentences in the future.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): This has been an excellent debate. It has been good-humoured and utterly lacking in party political rancour, except for a little deviation at the end from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), who started yapping a bit. Apart from that, it has been good-humoured and well-informed, as well it might because we have been considering important work from a Select Committee that has done the House a great service through the careful and considered way in which it has approached the subject.
The Select Committee has endorsed much of what the Government have already done and taken forward with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 but—this is important—it has also highlighted some areas to which we and, indeed, the nation need to give greater attention. That is particularly welcome. Those issues are not a matter simply for Government. They need to engage the whole community as we move in partnership to contain and to reduce crime and criminality.
We should be under no illusions about the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who chairs the Select Committee with such distinction, made it clear that the Committee as a whole—each member of the Committee who has spoken has given weight to the proposition—recognises that what is needed is rigour: intellectual rigour and a rigorous approach to disposals, whether prison or alternatives to prison. What we cannot have is a situation in which we do not recognise that intervention needs to be targeted, tough—we make no apology for using that word—and effective.

Mr. Ruffley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng: No, I will not give way.
We are about reflecting society's determination that we should have a criminal justice system that recognises a place for punishment and retribution, and that punishment and retribution go alongside rehabilitation and reform. Unless we have a balance between the two, we are unlikely to succeed.
I make two important points in response to the debate. First, in talking about alternatives to imprisonment, we need to recognise that sentencing is, properly, dealt with by the courts. Many offenders can be dealt with in the community, which should be encouraged where appropriate, but there will always be some for whom prison is the most appropriate punishment. They must find that punishment at the hands of our courts.
The point has been made, not least by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who have first-hand experience of the sentencing process, that the courts do not take that duty lightly. They wish to consider a range of alternatives in sentencing. It is important that we should assist them by ensuring that they have that range. The Government have with alacrity set about the task of giving them scope for making the most appropriate disposal.
We recognise that there is a job to be done, as the Select Committee has said, to ensure that the people who are responsible for sentencing are properly informed about the range of sentences open to them. It does not necessarily require—although, as the Lord Chief Justice suggested, it can be of assistance to the sentencer, whether a stipendiary, a lay magistrate or a judge in the Crown court—a visit to the centre of alternative disposal. It is possible for sentencers to be informed in other ways. We plan to issue guidance in the new year about the role of probation staff who work in courts to enable them to include advice to sentencers, providing them with the necessary information and statistics about the probation programmes that are available locally. We look to them to use that information.
Secondly, we have to ensure that we give courts the powers that they need. That is why we have introduced new measures in the Crime and Disorder Act to enable courts to deal more effectively with young offenders. We have also introduced measures such as the drug treatment and testing order.
We believe that it is important to ensure that, in prisons, there is a regime that does all that it possibly can not only to keep drugs out—that is why we emphasise creating in some prisons completely drug-free wings, where it is possible to provide the necessary alternative treatments to counteract offending—but to educate prisoners to enable them to come to terms with the drug misuse that led to their being there in the first place.
That must not be a soft option. It is a testing option for those who submit themselves to those programmes. It is important that entry into the programmes is voluntary, because otherwise people do not have the motivation to come to grips with their drug problem.
The Government are determined to ensure that those who offend against society, whether they are in prison or have been given an alternative sentence, face up to their offending behaviour in the first place, and recognise that they need to equip themselves with the means to play a full, constructive and honest part in society.
It is great pity that the debate is constrained by time, because I should like to comment more on the important points that have been raised, but let me briefly go through some of them. The Select Committee rightly emphasised the importance of effective, evidence-based practice. That is why, when, for example, we look at the role of restorative justice as an alternative to custody, we build on the research evidence that is being gathered, for example, in the Thames Valley police area. Real progress is being made in developing restorative justice to make it clear that it is not a soft option.
Anyone who talks to the chief constable of Thames Valley police gets the clearest impression that he is absolutely committed, as are the justices in his area, to ensuring that young people, in particular, face up to the offending behaviour that got them there and do not, as they all too often do in youth courts, shelter behind lawyers, with those young people and their parents not confronting the offending behaviour.
It is important to develop a joint system within the Prison Service. That is part of an action programme that includes several other aspects. It is about the accreditation of programmes that are available in prison to combat offending. It is also important to ensure that we work with the probation service to guarantee that those who are sentenced to community service recognise that, where they breach that service, they will certainly return to court, so that they can be disposed of in a more appropriate way. A community service order must not be seen as getting away with it. I accept that a strong case has been made for renaming the order, and we are actively considering that.
I hope that, from my brief response, members of the Select Committee, who have worked so hard on the report, will have a sense of our determination to take the issues forward.
I had the pleasure of going with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) to a young offenders secure installation that is run by the Department of Health in his constituency. That installation is addressing the very issue of ensuring that courts have available to them places in which intensive intervention in the lives of those young people is possible. Very many of the young people in such installations are damaged, and come from homes in which they simply have not had a chance. Moreover, they have been failed repeatedly not only by the criminal justice system but by social services and an array of agencies that should have been working to ensure that they did not offend initially.
Across Departments, the Government's commitment is to ensure that we learn the lesson of early intervention that is taught by the Home Affairs Committee's report. We shall learn that and other lessons. Together, in the spirit that the Committee has demonstrated, we can and shall make a difference.

Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates).

Class 1, Vote 1

New Deal

[Relevant Documents: Seventh Report from the Education and Employment Committee of Session 1997–98, on Pathways into Work for Lone Parents, HC646, and the Government's response thereto, HCI 122; Eighth report from the Education and Employment Committee of Session 1997–98, on New Deal Pathfinders, HC1059, and the Government's response thereto, HC1123; Department for Education and Employment and Office for Standards in Education Departmental Report: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1998-99, Cm3910.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £6,826,077,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Department for Education and Employment on voluntary and special schools; the Assisted Places Scheme; the provision of education for under-fives; City Colleges and other specialist schools; grant-maintained schools and schools conducted by Education Associations; music and ballet schools; the school curriculum and its assessment; the youth service and other educational services and initiatives; careers guidance and services; payments for or in connection with teacher training; higher and further education provision and initiatives; loans to students, student awards and other student grants and their administration; the payment of access funds; reimbursement of fees for qualifying European Community students; compensation payments to teachers and staff of certain institutions; expenditure on other central government grants to local authorities; the provision of training and assessment programmes for young people and adults; initiatives to improve training and qualifications arrangements and access to these; the promotion of enterprise and the encouragement of self employment; payments for education, training and employment projects assisted by the European Community and refunds to the European Community; events associated with the UK presidency of the EU; the UK subscription to the ILO; help for unemployed people; the promotion of equal opportunities, disability rights, childcare provision and co-ordination of certain issues of particular importance to women; the payment of certain fees to the Home Office; the Department's own administration and research and that of Capita; information and publicity services; expenditure via Training and Enterprise Councils and amounts retained by them as surpluses and spent by them on training; other initiatives within their articles and memoranda of association; expenditure in connection with the sale of the student loans debt; and on expenditure in connection with the Welfare to Work Programme and Millennium Volunteers.—[Mr. Andrew Smith.]

Mr. Derek Foster: I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate, and should like to thank the Liaison Committee for choosing to refer to the Education and Employment Committee's two reports.
My next task is to praise the members of my Committee. As a veteran talent spotter within the parliamentary Labour party, I have never seen such an array of current and future stars—and that includes the Liberal Democrat Members and our Conservative colleague, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who unfortunately cannot attend this debate as he is attending his child's carol service. All Committee members have an enormous amount to contribute, and I am very proud to chair the Committee.
We should like also to thank the Chancellor for giving us £5 billion in this Parliament with which to advance the flagship new deals. It is at least £5 billion more than was provided by the previous Government
I should like to thank the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities for creating a listening and learning Department.

Mr. Paul Keetch: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes his thanks, should he not also thank the utilities that provided the money so that the new deal could start initially?

Mr. Foster: I cannot thank them, because they did not want to part with the money. We made them do so—and there is the difference between Labour and Liberal Democrat.
As I said, I should like to thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for creating such a listening Department. All our experience—I think that it is shared by hon. Members from every party—is that reasonable suggestions made to either the Secretary of State or the Minister are listened to and examined. Moreover, if they are practicable and sensible, they are likely to be implemented. That is not true in all Departments.

Mr. Willetts: Which ones?

Mr. Foster: I shall not name them today, but may go into a different mode on a different occasion.
I praise the liberation of the Employment Service. I was one of those who felt initially that the Employment Service—the agent of the harsh benefits system—was the wrong agency to be implementing the new deal. I doubted that that agency knew anything about being a sharing and caring organisation that could help younger and older people to negotiate all the difficulties of education and learning. However, I was wrong. The Employment Service—with its very able chief executive, Leigh Lewis—has through its 35,000 staff implemented a culture change. Those staff have been liberated from implementing a harsh benefit regime to doing what they enjoy doing: assisting people in finding work.
The welfare-to-work programme is absolutely central to reforming the welfare state. Moreover, getting people into jobs or training and developing them—whether they are in or out of work—is central to the Government's excellent supply-side measures. Reform of the welfare state and supply-side measures together should yield far more employable people—who are far more able to get a job, to keep a job and to find another job if they lose the first one.
I should like to mention Robert Reich, who hon. Members will know was Bill Clinton's previous Secretary of Labour. He said that running a successful economy and generating jobs was a bit like a three-legged stool. The first leg was to have a sufficient number of employable people; the second was to have an abundance of adaptable organisations; and the third was to have adequate demand. The three goals are mutually reinforcing and interdependent, and they must be pursued simultaneously. The Government are trying to do that. They are not always succeeding, but they are certainly trying.
If the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, the new deal for those over 25, the new deal for lone parents and the new deal for disabled people all succeed—I believe that they

will; they have certainly made a very good start—we will end up with many more employable people, thereby enabling the economy to run at a higher growth rate than otherwise would have been possible.
Similarly, we will be able to respond to rapidly changing market opportunities if we succeed in making all our companies—global companies, small and medium-sized enterprises, and micro-employment and selfemployment—more adaptable by investing in research and development; by energising a culture of innovation; by training, developing and properly managing staff; and by being entrepreneurial, which is a very rare skill about which most us know nothing. If we succeed in creating such adaptable organisations, we will also enable our economy to grow much faster than would otherwise be possible.
In the past few years, the United States of America—to which we tend to look—has created millions of jobs by making people employable and creating adaptable organisations. Nevertheless, Robert Reich eloquently said that, although they created millions of jobs, many of those were "crap" jobs. Although that is not the type of language that I usually use—he said it, not me—he was right.
I do not want to deal with the demand side of the equation, as that would tempt me to deal with the issues at far greater length.
I shall deal now with the two reports on which this debate is centred. Hon. Members who have read "New Deal Pathfinders" will see that our recommendations are on pages 24 to 27. I should like to mention just two of them. The first is recommendation 2, about personal advisers, and the second is recommendation 10 on the take-up by employers.
The personal adviser is rapidly becoming the agent of transformation of the Employment Service. The Committee wants that pursued vigorously and rigorously throughout the new deal, particularly if the responsibility of that personal adviser begins before a person's entry into the new deal and continues throughout its course and for some time after. If a continuity of support and advice is available, people will have more success in entering the labour market and staying in it.
In Australia, we discovered that the father of the new deal—the working nation—failed to a certain extent because the commitment of the private sector was not engaged. The Government have been extraordinarily wise in getting private employers signed up so readily. They went for the global players first—the people with the big reputations whom everyone looks up to. That enabled the small and medium enterprises to follow through.
The Government have been more successful than I expected. Some 30,000 employers have already signed up. The Employment Service has increased its market share to upwards of 32 per cent. In Australia, the figure was only 20 per cent. It is remarkable that a publicly led employment service has managed to secure 32 per cent. of the market and rising, whereas the private-led employment service in Australia has only 20 per cent. at the moment, although that could, and probably will, change.

Mr. David Willetts: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the important issue of


employer involvement in the new deal. I am sure that he is aware of the letter from Chris Humphries, the director general of the British chambers of commerce, who says:
Many companies report little or no contact from the Employment Service and so a severe lack of information … is magnifying their confusion and leading to significant disillusionment.
I should be interested in the right hon. Gentleman's comments on those concerns expressed by employers.

Mr. Foster: I have a high regard for Chris Humphries and I shall take that comment seriously. More important, my right hon. Friend the Minister has heard the comment. I am sure that he will take it seriously, and will do what he can to rectify the problem.

Mr. John Healey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Foster: I have no time. I am sorry, but I have to finish in two minutes if I am going to keep faith with my colleagues. I should love to be able to give way, but I must finish shortly.
The recommendations on the lone parents scheme are on pages xlii to xlvi. There is a helpful summary of them on page xlii in paragraphs 1 and 2. I want to mention two elements briefly. The first is education and training, which we considered immensely important. We found the Government's response dismissive—if I may say so kindly to my right hon. Friend the Minister—and we think that they are mistaken. We want to get lone parents out of the poverty pay market. There is no virtue in them being locked into poverty pay, because they would be only marginally better off than if they had not joined the labour market. We want to create ladders of opportunity that they can climb up, allowing them to progress and have more income, better opportunities and better jobs. Education and training is the secret to that.
My final point—well, I shall make another if I have time—is transport. In all the new deals that we have examined, it quickly became clear that the ability of people to get to where the job opportunities were was crucial to the success of the schemes and of the labour market.
One of the acid tests of the new deals is whether they have street cred. It does not matter what we think. What matters is what the people concerned think, particularly the young people. If they write the schemes off, they will not succeed. At the moment, that is not happening.
The other acid tests are how the schemes cope with the disadvantaged and how they cope with ethnic minorities. What I have seen so far does not impress me greatly. The Government are trying to deal with the problems. Young people from the ethnic minorities have a far greater share of unemployment than the rest of society. Dealing with that is a big challenge for the Government.
I thank the House for listening to my rather poor speech. I look forward to hearing the other contributions.

Mr. Paul Keetch: I am delighted to follow what was not a poor speech but an excellent one by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). As the only Opposition member of the Select Committee present, I thank him for the courtesy that he gives to me

and the other members. He may be surrounded by rising stars—I see one or two next to him and behind him—but I am sure that his star is not yet in decline.
The problems and hardships of lone parents are considerable. The Liberal Democrats recognise how the new deal affects them. I shall be brief in my contribution to this short debate, because I want as many people as possible to have the chance to speak. I shall concentrate on the new deal for young people and specifically the results from the pathfinder areas.
There are direct and indirect lessons from the experience of the pathfinder areas. Some of those lessons have not yet been addressed by the Government. The report is old and time has moved on, but I hope that the Minister will respond to three specific points.
The first was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman in his closing remarks. People from ethnic minority backgrounds have made relatively poor progress under the new deal. During the Select Committee's visits to the west midlands in March, I asked about the participation rates among the ethnic minorities. At a meeting at Bilston college, people from 20 or so social groups from a wide range of areas came to talk to us. I asked them, in their judgment, what percentage of people from the black and Afro-Caribbean communities bothered to sign up to the jobseeker's allowance. Was it 70 per cent.? Was it 60 per cent.? They told me that in their experience less than 50 per cent. of young people from the ethnic minorities bothered to sign up for the jobseeker's allowance. That means that 50 per cent. are excluded from any help under the new deal.
Such schemes are of value only if they help those most at risk of exclusion from the labour market. It is easy to design employment schemes to get middle-class, well-to-do white people back to work. We have to judge schemes by how they affect those most at risk. If the new deal fails such groups, it will be no better than its predecessors.
I welcome the Government's decision to provide fuller statistical information on the progress of ethnic minorities in the new deal and beyond, as long as that involves producing initial survey material on those who are not claiming the jobseeker's allowance as well as those who are. We need to know what is happening to them.
The Lambeth pathfinder has a large percentage of people from ethnic minorities. I drew the area to the Minister's attention in an oral question on 19 November. I pointed out the poor progress of young people from Lambeth in the subsidised employment option. Discrimination is an easy accusation to make, but difficult to prove. However, there is worrying evidence that employers are more reluctant to offer subsidised jobs to young people from the ethnic minorities than to people from the white community. In his reply, the Minister tried to reassure me that the glass was "half full". That is no comfort to those who find themselves in the empty part of the glass.

Ms Abbott: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the same problem affected the old Manpower Services Commission programmes? Employers were unwilling to take on black young people even when they were well qualified, so they tended to be shoved into the voluntary sector. We have to be particularly watchful and prevent that from happening under the new deal.

Mr. Keetch: The hon. Lady is right. I have one or two proposals that might solve that problem.
It is no comfort to those in the empty half of the glass, especially if the Employment Service monitors only half the number of young, black unemployed people who register for the jobseeker's allowance. If the Department is still only considering setting up an employer database that could tell us where the subsidised vacancies were and the number of starts on the employment option by employer, how can we identify best practice and improve the scheme? How can we ensure that the glass will ever be full? As long as members of the ethnic minorities have only a 50 per cent. chance of obtaining subsidised employment in Lambeth or in any inner city, the new deal will be no deal for them.
The first essential step is to collect the right information which must then be used to combat bias in the system. We want a scheme that works for the long-term unemployed. We do not want to pretend that half a glass is enough.
My second concern is the cost of the scheme. I am talking not about the so-called costings produced by the Conservative party, which is not known for its book-keeping, but about the discrepancy between the replies that my hon. Friends and I have received from the Minister.
In May, I was given costed options—other than the subsidised employment option—of about £4,000 per person. Last month, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) received a reply costing them at £2,600 per person. Only yesterday my noble Friend Lord Tope was informed by the Minister of State in the other place that the cost was only £1,000 per person. Last week the Minister of State told the Select Committee that that was a result of the contracting process. Yesterday in another place we heard a slightly different tale. Does any Minister in the Department know the answer?
The Select Committee would have had a better idea and a better view of the progress of the pathfinder areas, had more information about costing in general and the contracting process in particular been made available. For example, the Government have finally released the specification document in respect of the new deal pilots for the over—25s on which all those tendering for the work based their bids. I have it here. In that document, the Government make it clear to potential bidders that £1,300 per person is being made available. I do not recall the Committee being shown a similar document for the new deal for young people. If such a specification was produced, I suggest that the Minister places a copy in the Library. Perhaps he could also refer to it and let us know the figure. Was it £4,000, £2,600 or £1,000?
Thirdly, I want to refer to the planning assumptions on which the scheme was based. The specification for the over—25 pilots shows just how limited the Government's ambitions really are. It states quite clearly that the pilots should do "at least" as well as the labour market would do by itself. That is hardly the "new beginning for Britain" that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment promised when he launched the new deal in 1997.
After seeing the result of the pathfinder areas, the Liberal Democrats have yet to be convinced that the new deal programme will meet the claims made by Ministers or, more importantly, the needs of those whom it was designed to help.
In his response to the Centre for Policy Studies, the Minister of State said that the Government should not claim the new deal a success too soon. I could not agree more.

Ms Diane Abbott: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in tonight's important debate, because the new deal is a flagship programme for the Government. I take a keen interest partly because my constituency in Hackney has the highest unemployment rate in the south-east. It has particular problems with structural unemployment. The new deal must work in inner-city constituencies such as Hackney and Brixton and in Manchester and Birmingham or it will not have delivered.
I have been in correspondence with the Minister about the new deal programme since last autumn and before that with his predecessor. This evening I want to touch briefly on three issues: the wider economic context in which the Government are attempting to roll out the new deal, the role of Reed as a private-sector partner in Hackney, and the particular issues relating to black young people. I congratulate the Select Committee on its important and interesting recommendations. I hope that Ministers will read the report again, and provide a more positive response on those issues.
Let me start by addressing the wider economic context. The new deal can deliver on the hopes and aspirations that are riding on it only in the context of economic growth. It seems a long time since the Labour party spoke in terms of full employment. Ministers may sneer, but only full employment will combat the structural unemployment in Hackney and elsewhere in inner London and get people back to work. Unless the Government set full employment as their goal, many of the hopes resting on the new deal programme will remain just that.
Certain aspects of the Government's economic policy—their monetary policy and the limits on public expenditure that account for poor public sector participation in the new deal—cause me concern. Anyone who mentions economic slowdown is accused of talking down the economy, but the manufacturing sectors are in recession and in time they will carry the rest of the economy in that direction.
I make those points to stress that on its own the new deal is not enough. It must operate in the context of economic growth, and certain aspects of the Government's economic policy give rise to concern about the prospects for growth.
I was particularly keen to speak tonight because Hackney is one of the two initial pathfinder areas with a private sector partner, Reed, for the new deal. I have no principled objections to a private sector partner. I share the reservations of some of my colleagues about whether the Employment Service is the best vehicle to deliver the new deal and there is no doubt that fresh thinking and fresh ideas are needed.
I have worked closely with Reed in Hackney on the new deal. The team led by Chris Melvin comprises pleasant, approachable young men who seem eager to do their best, but the role of Reed in relation to the new deal in Hackney is problematic. Reed was a major donor to the party and Alex Reed is an adviser to the Department. In February, when I asked the Reed team about the process


of tendering, those nice young men said, "We did not tender on costs, but on the originality of our ideas." As someone who has worked in local authorities and knows how the tendering process works, I have never heard of a tender being awarded on that basis. When I asked those young men what was the value of the contract, they said, "We are still in negotiation on that."
I have asked Ministers for more details about the tendering process. Although I do not expect a response tonight, I should like to know the value of the contract. I would prefer not to be fobbed off by arguments about commercial confidentiality. In awarding a contract to a group that makes big donations to the party, we must be like Caesar's wife—above reproach. We need greater transparency on Reed's involvement, the value of the contract and how the tender worked.
Having received the contract in Hackney, Reed has won a series of new deal contracts. Although the people from Reed are pleasant and enthusiastic, they have yet to meet their own targets for putting people into work in Hackney, so it is strange that they should have been offered contracts in other areas.
I am glad to have this opportunity to speak about issues relating to ethnic minorities, which, as other hon. Members have said, will be important in judging the success of the new deal. I remind those hon. Members who represent suburban or rural constituencies that do not have the ethnic minority populations of inner-city areas that, in London, the level of unemployment for young black males between the ages of 18 and 24 is approaching two thirds. I live in my constituency and with the consequences of those high levels of unemployment—the hopelessness and anger, and the social and, yes, criminal problems.
If I have been persistent on the new deal and a nuisance to the Minister—and to the former Member for Enfield, North—it is because I feel so strongly about the ramifications of the high levels of unemployment, particularly among young black males. I accept that suggestions are now being made on how the new deal could tackle ethnic minority issues and that the Select Committee has made some interesting recommendations, but I regret that a concern for those issues was not, from the outset, built into the way in which the new deal programme was structured.
When the contract was put out for tender in Hackney, for example, there was no specific requirement for expertise in and understanding of ethnic minority issues, and no one from the ethnic minorities was put on the selection panel. It would have been better if an understanding of those issues and of the structural problems had been required from the beginning; instead, we have belatedly to employ working parties and consultants.
There is a danger that we are re-inventing the wheel. Those of us who worked in the community sector and in local authorities in the inner cities in the 1970s and 1980s know the difficulties of attracting young black people to such projects, of engaging them in those projects and of putting them in work. In their enthusiasm to be new and modern and to reach out to the private sector, the Government have ignored the wealth of knowledge and expertise among long-standing party members, albeit old Labour party members.

Mr. Derek Foster: My hon. Friend makes some valid points, which were put to us when we went to—if I may use

the expression—the black country. Those hon. Members, including me, who do not have many members of the ethnic minorities in their constituencies, misunderstand the vigour and richness of the community life of black and Asian people, just as people often misunderstood the vigour and richness of the mining communities. One has to live in an area to experience such qualities. Does she agree that part of the problem is a failure of communication?

Ms Abbott: Yes. I have had to draw Reed's attention to the existence of groups and networks. Indeed, I was surprised that Reed won the contract, as it does not have an office in Hackney; its knowledge of labour market conditions there is limited. As I said, the Reed people are pleasant and enthusiastic young men who are willing to learn. However, Reed put into Hackney a team that was all white and that had no experience of the area. Instead of bringing in experienced Reed staff, who at least would have had some knowledge of and contacts in the private sector, it recruited fresh people to deliver the new deal programme. Hackney had the down side of private sector involvement but not the up side—specialist recruiters and job placement people. Unless one lives in these places, it is easy not to understand the community's richness.
Some of the people to whom the Committee spoke were dismissive of local organisations, but those organisations know their communities. They know why young black people may be unwilling to sign on and why they may be cynical; they know of the small ethnic minority businesses that may be able to deliver for the new deal. I regret that some of those issues were not built in to the new deal in the beginning. I regret that, in putting out tenders to organisations such as Reed, the Government did not include more specific stipulations to work in partnership with ethnic minority and other voluntary organisations with real knowledge of the communities. I am glad that statistics are now being collected, but a new deal programme that fails young black people in Hackney will fail all people in Hackney; it will fail to engage with some of the most pernicious problems of social exclusion in society.
I refer to two recommendations in the Select Committee report to which I do not believe the Government have given an adequate response. Recommendation 21 suggests that capacity-building funds could be provided for some ethnic minority organisations. I ask the Government to reconsider that, as organisations—even black and Asian small businesses—exist that would take on new deal trainees. The Government must be more creative in engaging directly—not through consultants and experts—with the black and Asian community and with black and Asian businesses, which have a big role to play in the new deal. In the Hackneys, the Brixtons, the Moss Sides, the Handsworths, the only businesses—with the exception of the Sainsbury's and the big retailers—are small ethnic minority businesses. Again, if the new deal is not proactive in the inner city in involving ethnic minority businesses, it will not put our young people, black and white, back to work.
I am also sorry that the Government dismissed recommendation 22, in which the Select Committee suggested a survey of unregistered unemployment. It is precisely because black young people are not on the electoral register that no one knows how many there are. I am sure that my hon. and long-standing Friend the


Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) would say this even more vehemently—our perception, as people who have lived, who have been brought up and who have worked in these communities, is that the proportion of black youngsters who do not register even for the jobseeker's allowance is vast. Until the Government survey, unregistered unemployment—I shall say this in the House on every opportunity that I have—they will not deal with social exclusion, the issue that the new deal is supposed to tackle. What is the point of a new deal that gets X per cent. of black youngsters to work if the majority of black youngsters are not even in contact with the Employment Service?

Mr. Keetch: The hon. Lady will have heard me cite the figure—around 50 per cent.—that was given to us at Bilston. Given her vast experience in this matter, will she give her estimate of what the figure really is?

Ms Abbott: The Government dismissed that estimate. I do not want to get into estimates, but my guess—and my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham says the same—is that, for a variety of reasons, more black youngsters, particularly young males—I could talk at length about the issues relating to young black males—do not register than register. That is why it is so important to conduct a survey. If the survey proves me wrong, all well and good—I shall stop harping on the issue—but I am frightened that Ministers will say that the new deal programme is a success, even though, as those of us who live in Hackney, Tottenham and Brixton will know, thousands of young men continue to live on estates, idle and hopeless.
The new deal is a flagship programme. In an area such as Hackney with terrible unemployment—and the terrible social problems that go with that—a lot is riding on the new deal. It is relatively easy to have a new deal programme that works on paper. It is harder to have a new deal programme that really works—and, in particular, a new deal programme that works in the type of community that I represent.
The Select Committee has done good work, and I support all the recommendations. I have spoken mainly about two because of the problems of time. I know that the Minister has taken steps on the question of ethnic minority communities with high unemployment—I know because I have been to see him more than once—but there is more to be done.
It gives me no pleasure to raise the issue of Reed, but it is time for transparency about the way in which it obtained the contract, and about how much it is obtaining from that and other contracts. We can carry no credibility unless our relationships with such corporate donors is wholly transparent and completely above reproach.
In closing, I congratulate Ministers, who have pursued the new deal programme with much enthusiasm and commitment—although they have not engaged some of the issues that I would like addressed. I congratulate the Select Committee, which has produced a useful and important report. However, many eyes are watching the new deal—some of those eyes do not even know that that is what they are watching. For a community such as mine, much rides on the programme. I am anxious to work

constructively with Ministers, with Reed in Hackney and with any colleagues who share my interests to make sure that this programme delivers for all our people.

Judy Mallaber: I agree whole-heartedly with many of the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who brought to life the Committee's recommendations on ethnic minority communities. I hope that the Minister will respond to those points, and that we have a continuing dialogue.
I wish to illustrate some of the positive aspects of the new deal by talking about individual examples. The Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), gave an excellent introduction—in spite of his protests—in which he spoke of the broad context of the new deal, and of our recommendations. However, talking about individuals brings the subject to life.
Half of my constituency is in the southern Derbyshire pathfinder area, and I shall refer to examples from my area. I also wish to refer to examples given to me last night over coffee, when I was talking to hon. Members who are unable to be here tonight. I shall start in Plymouth, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) was at a conference a couple of weeks ago. I have read some extremely positive quotes from the conference of the new deal providers and the personal advisers, who said:
Everyone deserves a pat on the back … Achievement even within short time-scale … New Dealers feel they 'own' New Deal … New Deal clients feel they are getting more opportunities … New Deal is 'a foot in the door' … the ambassadors are the New Dealers themselves.
I have spoken to some of the new dealers in my area in the past couple of days about the positive examples. There are many issues to be addressed—including some which have been raised tonight—but I wish to address some other issues also. The gateway is a positive part of the programme, which takes the person who is having difficulty in finding employment and looks at their needs. It does not say, "We will try to get you somewhere to go. You will go into that position and it will either work or not." The gateway looks at the needs of the individual—something that the Select Committee found to be positive.
The key issue—which was addressed by our Chairman—is the role of the personal adviser. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) gave me an example yesterday of a lone parent in her constituency whose take-home pay went up by £70 a week as soon as she got a tele-advertising job through the new deal. She said:
I feel confident. I didn't feel anyone would take me seriously. I thought it would be one interview and then I would be left to find my own way. I have a personal adviser who is there for me all the time. They are the make or break of New Deal.
She said that she could now plan her life, and had been able to get subsidised child care, provided by the local authority. She also said:
It's the first time I have ever been taken seriously.
That is a real condemnation of previous programmes, and it highlights a recommendation that we have been pressing on Ministers. We must ensure that there are


sufficient resources and training for the new deal personal advisers to be able to take on the role of personal mentor. That is a key part of the programme.
Another positive aspect is the role of training. I spoke yesterday—it gave me great pleasure to do so—to someone working in the Red Admiral pub in Codnor in my constituency. The pub happens to be right opposite the Conservative office in my constituency, and it is the place from which I could see that my predecessor's name, as Member of Parliament for Amber Valley, had been taken down from over the office. I spoke to Dwain Palfreyman—who was happy to have his name used—who has been unemployed, off and on, since 1994, when he got a medical discharge from the Army.
Dwain was unable to get more than odd jobs—nothing that he really liked. He was doing casual bar work at the Red Admiral—a very fine pub—and the publican said that he would like to take him on and train him up. However, he did not have the money to do so. The publican said that, because of the new deal, he was able to put the money into sending Dwain on courses. Dwain is now a licensed door supervisor, and has a national licensee's certificate. He has been on a number of courses, run by the British Institute of Innkeeping and by Bass.
Dwain said that he would not have been able to go on those courses if it were not for the money that was available through the new deal. To my delight, he is now going to be running a new bar in my town. The only thing that, worries me slightly is that, according to Dwain, it is a pub for the more mature customers—which he defined as the over-25s.
My third example concerns the experience of people being able to pursue their goals. I talked earlier today to Steven Wheatley, who is working at Prometheus Developments, down the road from where I live in Ripley. The company provides hi-tech research and development and advice in fire protection and flame-retardant materials. Steven left school at 16 with GCSEs at E grade. He has been unemployed for two years. He did a GNVQ science course, and has been taken on as a lab technician.
Steven's employer said that if he was prepared, through the training that the company was giving him—both in house and at college—to show that he was able to develop his theoretical understanding of the science and his research understanding, the company would be prepared to consider keeping him on. The company is on the point of offering him a permanent job, and he has started on a higher national certificate course at Nottingham Trent university.
The Committee recommended emphasising capacity-building for small enterprises. I have been talking to small businesses in my area, and saying that the new deal is a way in which they can take on people, see whether they can expand their business and get money for training and development. Steven had had a work trial somewhere else that did not work out. However, the company and Steven were able to try each other out and see how they did.
There are many extremely positive elements in the new deal. For the first time, people have been going out from my local employment service to the nearby industrial estate and knocking on doors. There are some difficulties, because the programme is as much client-centred as it is designed to meet employers' needs. There is some dislocation, because those who signed up expected people to come through their doors immediately, but it takes some time to process people through the gateway.
Everyone involved will have to keep a close eye on that, to ensure that, as the programme comes more on stream, employers, the voluntary and environmental providers and the task force providers get the people coming through.

Mr. Willetts: Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be helpful if the Department could provide statistics showing the number of employers who have signed up for the new deal, but have not yet taken on a single new deal participant?

Judy Mallaber: The Select Committee has been in favour of keeping statistics on every subject under the sun. We have been overwhelming people with requests for statistics. From the beginning, I have been going on and on at my local employment service to get as many and as varied opportunities as possible. In the past, I have been told of young people going to a jobcentre and being offered only work such as bricklaying—it was almost a matter of digging ditches—and being told that they will lose their benefit if they do not take it.
The whole point of the programme is to have a wide choice of opportunities so that we can meet the individual's aspirations. Steven, to whom I referred earlier, said that he was able to get other jobs but he really did not want to do them—for little money—because he knew that he wanted to be a lab technician.
There will be some dislocations, but the more statistics and information that are kept on all aspects of the programme the better, as long as we are not totally overwhelmed with figures.

Ms Abbott: Clearly there is a plethora of statistics. Does my hon. Friend agree that among the key statistics are the drop-out rate and the number of people who go through the scheme and end up with a job? In Hackney, 20 per cent. of people drop out right at the beginning, and no one knows what has happened to them; and only one in 10 of those who have gone through the new deal have actually got a job. Either the new deal gets more people into jobs than would otherwise have been the case, or it is not a success.

Judy Mallaber: I agree that it is important to keep an eye on what happens to people. We are now getting better information than in previous employment programmes. The criticism was made in South Derbyshire that about a quarter of people disappeared. Attempts are now being made to track those people down. A substantial proportion of the people who disappear have gained employment, but there is no particular reason for them to come back to the service and say so. I agree that monitoring is very important, and that is certainly happening in my area, although setting up monitoring systems is not always easy.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will pursue this point, and the Committee Chairman has already referred to it: the education and training option for lone parents is very important. We were concerned that sufficient attention was not given to it in the Government's reply.
When we started to consider the new deal for lone parents, we assumed that child care would be top of the list, but the more we looked at the statistics, the more


we realised that education and training were key, because graduate lone parents could get jobs much more easily. Those without qualifications had a bigger gap to bridge to pay for child care, travel and the other expenses of being in employment.
We realised that it was perfectly possible for lone parents to study and to remain on benefit, as the Government said in their response, but we wanted education and training, as a way of getting lone parents off benefits, to be given a higher profile and to be treated as a critical issue. All the evidence suggests that the way to get a decent standard of living is to get into work, that most lone parents would like to be able to work—certainly when their children are of school age—and that those who are in work would often like to be able to work a few more hours.
There are some difficulties with people not turning up to the gateway provision that has been made for them. At a gateway providers meeting in my area last Friday, I was told that some people came along to begin with and then stopped turning up. If one has not been in employment for some time, it is often difficult to take the first step. That is another reason why the personal adviser's role is crucial.
In my area, a gateway to the gateway has been introduced. There is a pre-induction course for each group of people who are about to come on to the gateway, to tell them what will be available, so they can start to think about their needs and what they want. I was told, however, that a number of people who were meant to be on one of the first courses were not at home when they were telephoned, which suggests that some of them may have some form of employment elsewhere. We do not know the figures, but we formed that impression.
As the report says, we need to keep a close eye on what is happening with people going through the gateway. We must keep statistics and have strategies for dealing with problems. That is now happening in my area.
A couple of days ago, I chaired a meeting at which the Minister dealt with questions from young environmentalists and those involved in the environmental task force. There are interesting examples of what can be done, and we have perhaps not yet focused sufficiently on them. In my area, forestry work—woodland management—is being done by six or seven trainees at Catton hall, in the South Derbyshire constituency. At the Midland railway centre in my constituency, which is a haven for train buffs, people are not only working on the railways, but doing animal husbandry at the neighbouring, and lovely, Britton Pit farm.
Many other jobs in management and IT, for example, have an environmental element, and the potential for job creation in that area is huge. The programmes must also be monitored to ensure that they are environmentally sensitive and that they can be used, with the millennium environmental volunteers, to promote environmental awareness. The Committee will probably return to that issue in future, but I raise it now because it was discussed at a meeting we attended recently.
The value of the five-year programme is that we can review it, and discover which areas are working well and which areas need tweaking or changing. I have found that Ministers have been responsive to our comments, and

communication across the spectrum of those involved has been good. Many Back Benchers have become very involved in the work in their areas, and found it very rewarding.
Last night, I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw), and he told me of a 24-year-old father of two in his constituency who has been unemployed for six out of the past eight years and who told my hon. Friend that he had reached rock bottom. He is now working, through the new deal, for a local construction firm, and he told my hon. Friend: "Now I have my bills sorted out. I am looking forward to buying presents for my kids. Why wasn't new deal brought in years ago?"

Mr. John Healey: I welcome this debate. The new deal programme is important to every Member of Parliament, because every constituency contains groups of the long-term unemployed who will benefit from it. I am therefore disappointed that not one Back Bencher from either of the main Opposition parties is present in the Chamber.
In areas such as Rotherham and South Yorkshire—and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—the new deal is the single most important policy programme of this Labour Government. For those whom the new deal aims to help, it is the first serious investment that they have seen from any Government in giving them real hope and opportunities to work and train, instead of drawing the dole.
Rotherham was proud to be picked as a pathfinder area for the new deal. We were proud to place in work the first new deal recruit in the country on 5 January. That recruit was Simon Turner, a 23-year-old who had never worked since leaving education. R. G. Components took him on as an engineering trainee, and, after he settled in, Steve Corbridge, the personnel manager, said that he was a smashing lad who loved working and was eager to do whatever was asked of him.
The twist in the tail is that, in September, R. G. Components was hit by a serious factory fire and had to lay off several workers, including Simon. However, by the start of October, Simon was in work again, through the open labour market, and he is still there. That is one case, like the many cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), that is testimony to the new deal achieving the twin aims of employability and employment.
I cannot understand the Conservatives, who begrudge the investment in the unemployed and belittle the achievements in opening up new opportunities for unemployed people. The Conservatives have opposed the new deal from the start. We should never forget that, without a Labour Government, we would never have had a new deal for lone parents, for disabled people or for older unemployed people. Without a Labour Government, Simon Turner would not be in work today, and 441 other youngsters in the Rotherham area would not hold the jobs that they now have.
In paragraph 1 of the Committee's report on pathfinder areas, we state:
It is too early to say with certainty that the New Deal works but we find the early evidence of success very encouraging.


The early signs of success include 185,000 young people taking up the new deal, of whom 38,500 are now in jobs. Youth unemployment is at its lowest level for 30 years. An interesting pattern is emerging, because the new deal is doing well, and not just in those areas whose local economies are doing well.
The unemployment unit, Youthaid, probably the most authoritative source of analysis and comment on the new deal, will release next week an analysis of the performance of the delivery units across the country. To do that, it will draw on data already published by the Department. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for making available on an unprecedented scale detailed information and figures to do with the operation of the new deal so that we can analyse its performance.
The unemployment unit will produce what it calls job entry rates, area by area, showing the proportion of young people who have begun the new deal, and who are in work. In some areas of high unemployment, a large proportion of young people are going into jobs. Other areas in which local jobs growth and the economy are strong are performing poorly. We can draw the conclusion that, although the state of the local economy is important to the success of the new deal, the most critical factors are perhaps the commitment of the Employment Service and the new deal partner organisations, and the drive of key figures in those organisations.
That has certainly been my experience in Rotherham, and I pay tribute to Peter Little, who leads the Employment Service; Chris Mallender, assistant chief executive of the local council; Chris Duff and Paul Iseard, who head new deal work at the chamber of commerce training and enterprise council; Roy Barnes, who does the lifetime careers input; and, Pat Heron, who, crucially, leads the local employers' coalition on the new deal.
The commitment of employers in the Rotherham area has been fundamental to the programme's success. That experience was reflected in the Select Committee, where Members were impressed with the evidence of Employment Service district managers. That is why the Committee recommended, in recommendation 20, that the Department's review of contracting procedures should invite first-hand information from district managers and new deal partner organisations. I am disappointed that the Department is missing that opportunity to gather valuable insights from the front line, and to emphasise that the new deal is inclusive, flexible and adaptable in the light of experience of what does and does not work.
The Select Committee paid attention to three other areas on which recommendations have been made to the Department. Paragraphs 39 to 43 of the report relate to new deal jobs in the public sector. Local authorities lobbied hard to be included in the jobs option of the new deal. Ministers listened, and, last September, adapted the programme to allow the wage subsidy arrangements of the new deal for public sector jobs. However, having risen to the challenge in leading local partnerships and in contracting for gateway provision, voluntary sector places and the environmental task force, the local authorities have failed so far to rise to the challenge of generating real jobs within the option for which they so strongly argued.
There are exceptions. Seventy jobs as classroom assistants have been created in Wales under the new deal, and 240 jobs have been created in the national health service in Scotland. Those are new jobs created under the

new deal. To some extent, that shows the way ahead for the public sector part of the programme. We should expect local government and the NHS to raise their games. The Government should more forcefully encourage them to do so.
During its inquiry, the Select Committee went to one of the country's leading pathfinder areas, in Cornwall.

Ms Candy Atherton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Healey: I have to say that it is one of the leading areas, not least as a tribute to all the work done to develop the new deal by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton).
I sat in on a discussion with local employers—small employers, in the main—signed up to the new deal. They said that the local economy was all right and that they were doing relatively well. They were looking to expand, but, being small, they could perhaps offer only a new part-time post. However, with the new deal, the job subsidy and the training dowry that comes with the new deal recruit, they could turn that part-time post into a full-time one.
We heard the same evidence from the district manager of the Eastbourne office of the Employment Service. She made it clear that in Eastbourne the wage subsidy was in large part used as a subsidy for small firms, and was essential in their expansion. I am therefore concerned that, by focusing simply on employment, and not on the potential for employment growth as well, we are to some extent missing the opportunity to get more for the money that we are investing in the new deal.
The Department's response to some of the points in our report is rather vague. In response to recommendations 11 and 12 in particular, it talks rather vaguely about what it terms a "sample survey of employers" in relation to new deal job creation, rather than building the issue into the Employment Service's negotiations of new deal contracts, employer by employer. I hope that the Minister can at least give us some more details about the planned evaluation of the extent to which the new deal is contributing to economic growth and local economic expansion.
The Committee's report deals at some length with the gateway and with the personal advisers who are the essential foundations of the gateway. Personal advisers are not just the starting point for the new deal; in my view, they are the pivot on which the success or failure of the new deal programme for the client turns.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), the Chairman of the Committee, described personal advisers as agents of transformation within the Employment Service. I agree. To my mind, personal advisers are the single most important innovation in the new deal for young people and in the new deal for lone parents. I pay tribute to the work that they do and to the way in which they have transformed the experience of the programme for the young people and lone parents involved. Personal advisers have to be the basis on which we develop the future of our employment and benefit services, and certainly the future of our proposed single work-focused gateway.
Although the report endorsed the role of personal advisers, it also reflected criticism from providers that they were not referring new deal clients fast enough,


either to providers of gateway services or to providers of options. Instead of experiencing the gateway as an intensive spell of assessment, tasters and guidance, many young people found that they were on a regime of weekly or fortnightly interviews with their new deal personal advisers.
Having examined the problem in some detail in Rotherham, I have found that it is not caused simply by the personal adviser wanting to build a solid relationship with the new deal client before referring him to a possible provider. Many young people in Rotherham area have been to the providers before. They have done the interpersonal skills, time-keeping and job-search skills courses. Even within the new deal programme, they regard referrals to some of the same places and agencies as merely another part of the scheme.
Rotherham has been selected as a pilot area for the 25-plus new deal. We are linking the completion of basic skills modules with what we are calling a "skills for Rotherham passport". Under the scheme, employers in Rotherham, organised by the new deal employers coalition, guarantee a job interview and work trial to any unemployed person who has this passport. In that way, unemployed people are beginning to see a clear link between the employability skills training that they are required to undertake and workplace outcomes and potential results.
In Rotherham, we need to reflect that experience and replicate it in the main new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds. We need also to make the linkage between the gateway and the new deal options a good deal more flexible. For instance, in the gateway period there may be training for a particular job that a young person could be lined up to take. There may, for instance, be more workplace tasters and fewer jobcentre or classroom sessions. There may also be the opportunity for basic skills courses, partly delivered in gateway, as part of the option that the young person moves on to, thereby enabling him or her to move on to that option more quickly.
In summary, the pathfinders for the main new deal and the pilots for the loan parents new deal show the way forward, including the adjustments that we still need to make to both programmes to obtain the most from the new deal. The experience of both to date shows strong signs of the success and importance of the new deal.

Ms Candy Atherton: I am grateful to be able to take part in the debate. It has been a fascinating experience as a Member in a pathfinder area to monitor the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, and an area where the new deal for the over-25s is being piloted.
I am a member of the Select Committee, and we have seen other members of it in fine performance this evening. I have found the investigations that we have been conducting as we monitor the new deal some of the most interesting aspects of my work as a Member of this place. I sometimes wish that we had a new deal to enable us to spend more time monitoring this work. It seems that this interest resides on the Government Benches, given the vast ranks of empty Opposition Benches.

Mr. Keetch: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Atherton: Oh, dear.

Mr. Keetch: I always enjoy intervening on the hon. Lady. Does she think that more interest might be shown on

the Opposition Benches—the Government Benches are not exactly crowded—if we had more than one debate on unemployment per year? Our most recent debate on unemployment took place almost exactly a year ago. Perhaps we should have some more debates on unemployment. The Liberal Democrats, if the Government would care to give us some more Opposition days, would love to have a debate on unemployment on one of those days.

Ms Atherton: The hon. Gentleman's memory is a little short. I remember debating employment less than three weeks ago, when the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) was present. If the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) had been present, he might have contributed to the debate on the Gracious Speech as well as being involved in this debate.
It is amazing to see the results of the new deal. Some hon. Members may remember my holding forth last winter on a young black man in Cornwall who wanted to work in home insulation, but whose dreadlocks, unfortunately, were seen by a local employer as a disadvantage. The local company was looking for a new deal recruit and the young man was desperate to work in home insulation. Sadly, the company told the jobcentre, "No way."
The young man's personal adviser talked to the company and with the young man. His adviser persuaded him to compromise by putting on a hat, and persuaded the company to give him a try. Two weeks ago, I met that young man again as I helped promote home insulation for older people in the Falmouth area. He is now employed full time with the company—well past six months—and he has been joined by another new dealer.

Mr. Healey: Is he wearing his hat?

Ms Atherton: Wait. Both he and the company are as happy as Larry. He no longer wears a hat and, interestingly, he has cut his hair slightly. He still sports the dreadlocks, but everyone is happy.
Some of the life stories and life-changing events of the past eleven and a half months are breathtaking. One example is the young man who had been a heroin addict in Cornwall for four years. He failed to tell his bewildered family, and finally admitted all to his personal adviser. He then felt able to tell his father, accepted help from the community drugs team, is now off heroin and is about to start the full-time education option.
How, I ask Opposition Members, does one put a price on that? How does one compute the costs of that young man's benefits, the tax that he was not paying, the possibility of his family following in his footsteps, the probability of a life leading into crime, and the effects on the rest of the community? I could go on. Those are the social costs that never appear on a spreadsheet, but mean the earth to those whom they affect.
I find as I visit local companies that many of the young people taken on through the new deal have been promoted and offered full-time permanent jobs at the end of six months. That will be the key to the long-term success of the new deal. Charities and voluntary organisations are taking on the young people when they finish their six months. It is now rare for me not to find a new dealer on my visits to local companies or organisations.
There is no doubt about it—the Cornish know a good deal when they see one. That is why the grapevine has spread the news. Young people on the new deal are to be found in all parts of the county. In an area where jobs are precious, more than 1,200 job opportunities have been notified by employers across the county. More than 600 employers have signed up.
The figures are illuminating: 385 people have been placed in unsubsidised work, not including the young people who found their own jobs during the gateway; 445 are on the employment option; 332 are in full-time education; and about 400 are split evenly between the voluntary sector option and the environmental task force. If one puts all those bewildering figures together, one finds that more than 1,500 young people have been offered opportunities that they would not otherwise have had.
In an area where almost 90 per cent. of our companies employ fewer than 10 people, it is clear that many small businesses each see the new deal as the way forward to create jobs and develop their businesses. Indeed, as was mentioned earlier, in our report we note the capacity-building opportunities that the new deal presents to small companies. I have anecdotal evidence of that from employers across Cornwall, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) from his area. I pay tribute to his work in Rotherham, as he paid tribute to mine in Cornwall.
Employers in Cornwall are saying that they have made the jump from employing a part-time worker to employing a full-time worker because of the opportunities that the new deal creates. The Government could pay more attention to that aspect of the new deal. Particularly in areas such as mine, it has been a major incentive for employers to improve their competitiveness locally and expand their companies.
One of the issues that Opposition Members raised frequently during the debate on the Queen's Speech was the costs of the new deal and the alleged lack of benefits to employers. I challenged hon. Members to visit Cornwall and hear for themselves what local employers are saying. What was said from the Opposition Benches bore no relation to what employers in the county—let alone young people—are saying to me. Surprise, surprise—Opposition Members have not taken up the challenge to visit an area which they know is a Tory-free zone. They dare not. The new deal is one of the great success stories of the Government, and there have been many in the county of Cornwall.
I find it wonderful to watch a previously ground-down service—the Employment Service—thrive and bloom with the new deal. I do not want civil servants to feel that they cannot be proud of working for Government. There is no doubt that, where the Employment Service locally has offered inspired leadership and driven the programme forward, it has succeeded.
There are lessons to be learned, and the reports that we are debating today—as well as future reports—will focus on that. I pay tribute to Michelle Maslen, the leader of the Employment Service in Cornwall, for the work that she and her team have done to drive forward the new deal in the county. Let us be clear about this: the offices look different, and attitudes are different. An energetic and committed Minister—my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal

Opportunities—has been vital in driving the programme forward, and, oh, what a difference there is between the Employment Service now and under the Tories.
Our report on the pathfinders placed heavy emphasis on the importance of personal advisers. Members of the Select Committee share concern that they may become overloaded and that quality might be sacrificed for quantity. The personal advisers have been one of the great successes of the new deal. Let us not waste this opportunity to invigorate civil servants and put pride back into the service.
Time is moving on, so I shall not say much of what I wanted to say. My hon. Friends—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends are telling me that I am all right to continue; I have time.
We are currently piloting the new deal for people aged 25 and over, and I am pleased that early entry is offered to people over 50 who have been unemployed for more than three months. Crucially for an area that had five of the top 20 unemployment travel-to-work areas this January, there will be entry from day one of unemployment for seasonal workers. I am talking not only about tourism, but about our struggling horticulture industry, which is facing severe difficulties. Day-one entry is very important. Classic low pay alongside seasonal employment has always been a double whammy for many in the county. Roll on April, and the national minimum wage.
Work has also started on tackling the other end of the problems that we face—those who slip through the education net at 15 and 16. As 30 per cent. of 15, 16 and 17-year-olds in Camborne are lone parents, many of my colleagues and I are desperate to raise many of those young women's aspirations. Should the area achieve education action zone status next year, as I hope it will be able to do, more work can be done to tackle the situation.
It cannot be right for a third of young girls in Camborne to see lone parenthood as the be-all and end-all of their aspirations. Colleagues on the Education and Employment Committee will smile, but the judicious use of objective 1 funds will be important in raising aspirations. I am delighted that the new deal is reaching many of the brothers and sisters of those girls and enabling them to hold their heads up and see a future.

Mr. Derek Foster: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ms Atherton: Yes, if my right hon. Friend is brief.

Mr. Foster: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which she has campaigned to achieve objective 1 status. We failed to achieve it in the county of Durham, but I am delighted that she has succeeded, as are many people in my county.

Ms Atherton: I thank my right hon. Friend. We await the final signature on the dotted line, but we hope to achieve objective 1 status for the county of Cornwall.
I want to tell hon. Members about a new dealer aged 24 who had no qualifications, only six months' work experience and literacy and numeracy problems. He completely lacked confidence, but his personal adviser guided him towards the environmental task force. He gained work experience, a reference, a fork-lift truck certificate and units towards a general national vocational qualification. He found permanent employment within a


month of completing the option. How do we put a price on that? We should compute the benefits that he and a future family might have required for generations, and think of the social benefits of that young man presenting a role model to his family and tackling his educational problems.
Last month, Opposition Members claimed that the new deal was failing, but clearly for many thousands of young people it has offered opportunities that were previously undreamed of. More than 38,500 young people who previously had no job now have one. We all know that anyone can play around with figures—the Tories did it frequently with the unemployment figures—but seeing young people happy and settled in long-term jobs, and in many cases careers, has been a real achievement for the Government. If one does not deduct payments made by employed people, one ends up with a totally spurious figure, as the Tories did last month. Given that so many of their former colleagues now qualify for the new deal, one would have thought that they would be willing it to succeed.
This week, I opened a training centre in Camborne. It operates from a former derelict site in the town centre, so we benefit from a refurbished town centre site and a new training centre. Behind the quiet, restrained exterior was a positive blooming of skills: young men training for building and other skills in a quiet and studious atmosphere. As the Eden project is being built in Cornwall—probably the biggest greenhouse in the world—we shall need many brickies, not to mention glaziers. New-dealers are working for the project, so it all goes round in circles.
May I sound a cautionary note? Some further education colleges do not believe that the training funding is sufficient. Other providers, however, have told me that it is more than sufficient, which just goes to show that one cannot please all the people all the time.

Ms Abbott: The point that my hon. Friend has made about training colleges is important. The Government must look again at the level of funding in areas with problems of literacy and basic skills.

Ms Atherton: I am quite prepared to accept that. I was implying that training providers outside further education colleges, which, let us face it, also receive funding, said that they were not getting enough money, yet training organisations said that their funding was sufficient. Perhaps we do need to look again at funding; I accept what my hon. Friend says about numeracy and literacy.
We must also ensure that bureaucracy does not deter business, particularly small businesses. Red tape could be the devil of the scheme. Although I am aware that the Committee demands ever more statistics from the Department, those statistics must be sensitively collected.
Another interesting fact that the new deal has brought to light is that colleges and training providers are finding that a new group is becoming involved in the new deal—young people from areas that are so rural that they have little or no access to public or any other form of transport. As a result, in the past they have opted out of the educational and training system. The new deal has flushed them out. Some inspired leadership has had to be shown

in devising a means of getting such people to work by training providers, the transport broker appointed by Cornwall county, and by the Employment Service.
One interesting new dealer travels to work on his skateboard. He was just about to leave Cornwall and head off to another part of the country to get away from what he called "the economic blackspot known as Cornwall" when he entered the new deal in January. He had no transport other than his skateboard, which he used to look for vacancies. He was prepared to take on any job that was offered to him. A local company was looking for a new production trainee. It gave him the job, and he offered to take on all extra duties and to work through holidays when other members of staff were away. So impressed was the employer that he was taken on full time at the end of the six months. He still travels to work on his skateboard.
May I sound another note of caution? In its travels the Committee found that other schemes, such as Working Nation in Australia, have tended to restrict opportunities and flexibility due to the inevitable adverse comment that journalists just love to make. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take courage and retain flexibility so that personal advisers can respond in the most appropriate manner to a person's needs. Do not make people fit the programme; let the programme be flexible enough to fit the individual.
The Minister must consider with great care the area of the new deal that we have not announced. I am concerned about the group of people—mostly older men—for whom no programme is in place. That is a great oversight. I urge the Minister to consider introducing a new deal for hereditary peers as a matter of great urgency. It is all they deserve.

Yvette Cooper: I, too, welcome the debate on the new deal. It is an extremely important area of Government policy. Rather than repeat many of the points ably made by my colleagues on the Committee, I shall concentrate my remarks on the second of the two reports we are considering, which is on the new deal for lone parents.
We should not underestimate how revolutionary the new deal for lone parents is, because it helps a group of ople who have been ignored by the Employment Service and by the state for a very long time. They have been abandoned as the passive recipients of benefits. The underlying assumption that mothers are at home looking after children, that if they want to work they can manage that themselves without any assistance, and that they probably stay at home anyway, is out of date. Some women will choose to stay at home and look after their children, particularly young children. The Committee has made it clear in its report that individuals should be left to make that choice. The Committee felt that it was not a matter on which we should make recommendations.
Those choices are more available to some than to others. It is a striking fact that 62 per cent. of mothers are in work, whereas only 42 per cent. of single mothers are in work. Single mothers do not have the same range of choices as mothers with a partner who helps them bring up the children. I make no apology for concentrating my remarks on single mothers. It is true that many of the points we have made in our report are equally applicable


to lone fathers who are at home bringing up children. However, as the majority of lone parents are single mothers, and as women in the labour market face particular additional problems, I have chosen to concentrate my remarks primarily on them.
It is easy to understand why single mothers face more obstacles getting into work. If there is someone else at home, there is someone else to juggle the child care responsibilities, so that child care or the lack of it is less of an obstacle. There are also two wage packets to share the cost of child care, which increases the chances of going out to work. If mothers are on their own, the sheer work load of looking after the children makes it harder for them to keep their skills up to date and to keep in touch with the world of work.
For the first time, the Government are facing up to those problems. The Employment Service contacts lone parents saying, "We're interested in you. We care about you." Lone parent new deal advisers provide women with information about jobs, child care and, most important of all, the benefits system and the impact of in-work benefits, which are incomprehensible to most people, even if they have begun to work out the details of the system.

Mr. Healey: One of the experiences from the pilots of the new deal for lone parents is that new deal advisers build up a special relationship with customers, and that has not happened before. On Monday, a new deal adviser for lone parents told me that her colleagues do not know whether it is a personal call or a customer on the line, because they all ask for Lorraine.

Yvette Cooper: We should not underestimate the support that personal advisers can give. I have a letter that was sent to the new deal lone parent adviser in my local employment service by a woman who has now got a job through the new deal for lone parents in my area. She wrote:
I am overwhelmed with tears as I cannot believe that all of you should take so much time and effort in helping me in the way you have done. Without your compassion, expertise and backup I know I would have given up and been back at stage one on income support.
Personal relationships such as that give people the confidence that enables them to go out and try things that they would not have tried before—to take the step into work that they might not otherwise have had the strength to take.

Judy Mallaber: We have found evidence of that positive relationship with new deal advisers everywhere. I feel that I have let the side down by not mentioning advisers in my area. The two people I mentioned earlier were looked after at the job centre by Tina and Paula. Does my hon. Friend agree that that relationship has been a universal theme?

Yvette Cooper: Yes—and those of us who have been concerned about the Employment Service and its history should especially congratulate those who have turned around its functions to such an extent, enabling it to play a very different role from the role that it used to play. While we are engaging in this congratulations love-in, let me pay tribute to Dave Barrett, the Employment Service manager in Castleford, and to his team, who have done so much locally.

Mr. Derek Foster: I am supposed to be the expert here—the one who is long in the tooth, having been in

the House for nearly 20 years—but I have not even mentioned my constituency, let alone any personal advisers.

Yvette Cooper: The new deal for lone parents is only just getting going in my area. So far it has held 58 interviews; many of those interviewed did not receive a letter, but volunteered to go in. Thirteen people have been helped into work. One person wrote to an adviser:
Thank you for all your help in getting me back to work. I am really enjoying the job and all the money.
That is great stuff. It epitomises what the new deal is all about. Part of the role of the Employment Service, and the Benefits Agency, is to enable people to do things, rather than merely handing things out.
I have some anxieties about the new deal for lone parents, however: I do not think that it is fulfilling its potential. Although its approach is revolutionary, and although it is doing much that has not been done before, I feel that it could do more. As the Committee's report states, we believe that the new deal for lone parents should include an education and training option like that provided by the young unemployed new deal. Education and training are important to lone parents, and the new deal should focus on them more.
If we look at the figures, 79 per cent. of mothers with degrees are in work, and 79 per cent. of single mothers with degrees are in work. A single mother with a degree is just as likely to be in work as a mother with a partner. At the other end of the qualifications scale, it is a different story: 40 per cent. of mothers with no qualifications are in work, while only 21 per cent. of single mothers with no qualifications are in work. In other words, those with no qualifications are twice as likely to be working if they have partners.
Skills make a massive difference to lone parents' chances of being employed. Let us look at the position in a slightly different way: a lone parent with a degree has a 79 per cent. chance of being in work, while a lone parent with no qualifications has a 21 per cent. chance. All the evidence that we took on the Select Committee reinforced that point. All the anecdotal evidence, and all the evidence from the groups, experts and lone parents themselves was that low skills and low qualifications were a huge barrier to getting into work.
Obviously, child care, benefit advice and all those things are important, but, fundamentally, skills are the key thing that make a massive difference. That should not surprise us.

Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend has made an important point. Does she share my concern about a constituent of mine who went to the new deal for lone parents office for help with child care because she was going to study, and was refused that help on the basis that her course was too advanced? She was going to do an access course for teaching. Teachers are badly needed in Hackney. The new deal needs to maximise the level of skill that people are encouraged to acquire.

Yvette Cooper: Hear, hear. My hon. Friend makes a good point. The link between child care and education, particularly child care and further education, has to be developed further if we are to help many single parents and, also, many parents generally into work who currently are unable to work.
None of that surprises us. Ministers spend the whole time talking about the importance of education, training and skills, and the barrier that low skills pose for people who want to get work and find that they cannot. That is, after all, what the new deal for young people is all about. That focus on raising employability is the key to the new deal for the young unemployed. It is why, in the long term, the new deal for the young unemployed will successfully keep people in work five years down the line, not just help them into their first job tomorrow.
The emphasis in the new deal for lone parents seems to be slightly different. Rather than focusing on employability, it seems to focus more on employment. The Select Committee recommended that the education and training option should be flagged up in bold, as it were, to focus women on reskilling—not just on getting their first job—and to help them to get a long-term career.
I found the Government's reply to the report's comments on that issue slightly disappointing. It points out that support is readily available for women on income support to go into further education. That is right. The Committee has never recommended that there should be a new funding stream, for example, or that we should change the structure in relation to lone parents' entitlement to join education and training courses if they are on income support. However, the key issue is to flag it up to people to make them aware that that is something that they can do. In my experience, many lone mothers are not aware that they are entitled to have their fees paid for various further education courses and other such courses.
The Department mentions in its reply that it has amended the letter that goes out to lone parents to flag up the education and training possibilities. I have a copy of that letter. It says:
If you've been wondering whether work is right for you then you've probably thought about all the difficulties. No doubt you've got many questions. Our team is here to provide answers.
As Personal Advisers for lone parents, we've been specially trained to help you through the process of getting a job. We can advise on which jobs may be right for you and we can calculate how much better off you may be in work. We can help you with applications and, if you want, suggest training courses.
That is it. That is only the reference to training courses.
The letter goes on to refer to benefits and to help in finding child care. There are several more paragraphs saying, for example, that if lone parents decide that the job is not right for them, they do not have to proceed. It is a good letter, but, in the five paragraphs, there is only one brief reference to training courses. The letter does not mention that lone parents will not have to pay for those courses, are already entitled to them, or that they might be an extremely good thing to think of doing.
Many single mothers who are out of work have low skills and may have left education earlier than they needed to, or may be anxious about going back into education—or it may not have occurred to them—but the letter does not give them the idea of perhaps going on a training course. If it did, it might raise the take-up rate. It might raise the number of lone parents who go along to the Employment Service and respond to the letter. Many people will not feel ready yet to go into work. Perhaps their children are still quite young, or they do not know whether child care arrangements will work out. Perhaps it

has been a long time since they have been in the labour market and they do not feel very confident because their skills are out of date. Perhaps they will not want to start something and then have to let people down. However, if there were a transition mechanism—such as a course, for example, which could help people to build their confidence, update their skills, give them time to work out child care arrangements and to discover whether the kids can cope getting home on their own—some people would be able to get into work who would not be able to without it.
I wondered whether the Department's letter was expressing a fundamental difference in approach between the new deal for lone parents and the new deal for the young unemployed. It is possible that the Department is taking a different view—it is perfectly valid, although I disagree with it—of the new deal for lone parents. If such a view is being taken, I should like to hear more about it from the Minister, as we should have a public debate on it. The view is essentially that work comes first: we get people into work first, and training, education and lifelong learning will follow. Such a view maintains that we must make families better off, and that the quickest way of doing that is to get parents into work, rather than diverting them from jobs into education and training.
There is evidence from other countries.

Mr. Keetch: Sadly, the hon. Lady was unable to join the rest of the Committee members in Australia. However, the point that she is making was made very strongly in the countless meetings and discussions that we had there on the precursor of the new deal and on the current scheme. People who have had the mere opportunity of training and of turning up at an interview looking smart and presentable were able not only to get a job but to find better jobs, and so to progress. She is making a very valid point.

Yvette Cooper: It is true that the best thing for many people will be to go into work first, and subsequently to consider lifelong learning and further education and training. However, for lone parents, the reverse is more likely to be true. As they have child care responsibilities, are more likely to be anxious about those responsibilities and are more likely to have already spent several years out of the labour market, the reverse approach—to ease them into work through education and training—would be more beneficial for them than for other groups who are currently outside the labour market. However, there is no conclusive evidence on that. Nevertheless, it seems that the work-first option—unlike the education-and-training-first option—is being heavily pushed in the new deal for lone parents, and that is a mistake.
We should be pushing the education and training option for lone parents. I ask the Minister to consider rewriting the letter and to flag up a big education and training option for lone parents. After all, we are pushing that option for those who are participating in the new deal for the young unemployed. For them, we are thinking about their long-term employability and what they will be doing not only tomorrow but five or 10 years down the line.
If we decide that the lone parents' new deal should concentrate on employment, whereas the young person's new deal should concentrate on employability, I fear that we will be in danger of fuelling some dangerous


prejudices. Although I do not think that the Department is inspired by such prejudices, there is a danger that we might fuel them. The first prejudice is that men have careers, but women have jobs. I think that, across society, that is still the prevalent view. An aspect of that view is that women, especially those with children, are fine in relatively low-paid and low-skilled jobs because their jobs take second place to their family responsibilities, whereas men think about long-term careers. After all, the young person's new deal is dealing primarily with men.
Secondly, I fear that concentrating on employment for lone parents but employability for the young unemployed will fuel the prejudice that the problem of low skills affects primarily men. That is increasingly evident in the media. It is said that women do not have a skills problem because girls do better than boys at school. Women have child care problems. Men have a skills problem because the old unskilled manual jobs have gone, so they need to be reskilled or they are not going to get jobs. The assumption is that lone parents need only child care to help them get through. Those views are mistaken. I hope that the Government will adapt the new deal for lone parents to take into account the importance of education and training.
I congratulate the Government on their revolutionary approach to the new deal for lone parents, which is incredibly important. They are doing more than any Government before. It is not clear that any Government before has done anything to help that group into work. The new deal for young people is brilliant. I hope that the Minister will be able to ensure that the new deal for lone parents can be brilliant, too.

Mr. David Willetts: This has been an interesting debate, following some valuable reports from the Select Committee. I thank the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), the Chairman of the Committee, for the way in which he introduced the report and explained why the Conservative Member of the Committee was not able to be present tonight.
Sometimes the debate became a little like an Oscar ceremony, with speakers naming all the individuals who have made the achievement possible. When it was not an Oscar ceremony, it was like a revivalist meeting, in which individual personal triumphs were celebrated, with the education Whip leading the hallelujahs from the Front Bench.
We have to look rationally and coolly at the spending of £5 billion of public money. The right hon. Gentleman introduced the debate in a spirit of appraising how effective the programme was and what information we had to judge it on. Some Labour Members were so preoccupied with celebrating individual successes that they did not seem to accept that young people were finding jobs before the new deal came along. There were even young people who had been unemployed for more than six months who found jobs before the new deal came along.

Judy Mallaber: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, when we talked about those who had disappeared and we did not know what had happened to them, I pointed out

that, in my area, a number of them had got jobs? We are well aware of that. We are seeking jobs for those who are unable to get them.

Mr. Willetts: It would be wrong to count every person who leaves the gateway and goes into employment as a success for the new deal. As evidence submitted to the Select Committee shows, 80 per cent. of young people who had been unemployed for six months moved off benefit in the following year anyway. I guess that that is one reason for recommendation 5 in the eighth report. It is a good recommendation. It begins:
We question whether the numbers recorded as entering unsubsidised employment should all be registered as outcomes from the Gateway.
That is an important point. We cannot assess the success of the programme without reflecting on what would have happened without it.
We think that the programme is an expensive way in which to deal with youth unemployment, because, once it is recognised that a significant proportion of those involved would have got off benefit anyway, we are left with a large sum of money being spent on small numbers of extra young people—if any—moving into work. The figures change almost every week, but we are talking about roughly 21,000 people moving into unsubsidised jobs and 9,000 moving into subsidised ones.
If we took the approach hinted at in recommendation 5 in the Select Committee report and did not count the people moving into unsubsidised jobs from the gateway as successes of the new deal, but only the 9,000 moving into subsidised jobs, we would have an even higher cost per job for the new deal than the £11,000 calculated by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) in the pamphlet published by the Centre for Policy Studies. We need to consider exactly what the new deal delivers in terms of employment opportunities in addition to what would have happened anyway.

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): Does the hon. Gentleman concur with the figure that was published by the Centre for Policy Studies and the means by which it was calculated?

Mr. Willetts: I am the deputy chairman of the Centre for Policy Studies and I was very proud of that publication. If anything, it is an underestimate. The costing of £11,000 is reached on the basis of those entering subsidised and unsubsidised jobs. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford had followed recommendation 5 and counted only the subsidised jobs, he would have calculated an even higher cost per job under the new deal. He went out of his way to be generous to the Minister. It is a pity that he did not read the report in the spirit in which it was written.

Mr. Derek Foster: The hon. Gentleman heard me say that the economy can be run more successfully with more employable people and more adaptable organisations. I admit that that is incalculable, but the hon. Gentleman ignores that factor completely in his rather narrow concept of costing.

Mr. Willetts: I appreciate that that is one argument for the new deal. Over time we have been offered various


arguments. We were told that it would save money that could then be released into education, but the profile of expenditure in the new deal does not appear to anticipate any savings during the lifetime of this Parliament. It certainly does not appear to be tailing off. Rather than spend the remaining few minutes on that, perhaps I can refer the right hon. Gentleman to a separate pamphlet on welfare to work in which I tackle precisely that point, which Professor Layard, now one of the Minister's advisers, is very keen on.
I now turn to priorities. If Ministers believe that the new deal is so effective, why is money distributed in the way that it is? There are nearly twice as many long-term unemployed as there are young people unemployed for more than six months, yet young people get five times the budget. Ten times more per person is being spent on the young unemployed than on the long-term unemployed. As the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, even less per person is being spent on single parents. Recommendation 8 in the seventh report was that
the New Deal for Lone Parents
should
offer a full-time education and training option".
If Ministers believe in the effectiveness of the new deal, it hardly seems equitable to distribute the resources between young unemployed, long-term unemployed and single parents in the way in which they are allocated in the new deal programme over the next four years.
Statistics suggest that the long-term unemployed have a lower chance of getting back into work. Young people, even if they have been unemployed for six months, are particularly mobile and have a relatively good record of moving off benefit. The problem is older people who have lost contact with the labour market for longer.
Let me raise some specific points. We are told that personal advisers are an important part of the new deal. I have enjoyed visiting several new deal projects in different parts of the country, and if the hon. Member for Falmouth and Cranborne—

Ms Atherton: It is Falmouth and Camborne.

Mr. Willetts: I do not know why that name sprang to mind. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford cannot be here this evening because he is attending his association annual dinner at which Lord Cranborne was supposed to have been the guest of honour.
As I was trying to say, the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) invites me to Cornwall every time that we debate this issue. At this rate, I shall indeed end up going to Cornwall to inspect the new deal there.

Ms Atherton: I am happy to invite the hon. Gentleman to Cornwall, as long as he meets the young people and the employers whom the Select Committee met—they might change his attitude significantly. If he wants only to visit the Falmouth and Camborne Conservative association, then forget it. If he wants genuinely to learn, however, I should be delighted to escort him personally.

Mr. Willetts: There is a limit to this, but I am sure that something could be arranged.

Mr. Keetch: May I suggest that, if the hon. Gentleman visits Cornwall, he does more than the Select Committee

did? Despite the fact that we flew into north Cornwall and spent an hour driving across Cornwall, we visited only one constituency—Falmouth and Camborne.

Mr. Willetts: The purpose of the debate is not to discuss regional tours, so let us move on.
Personal advisers represent a labour-intensive way in which to deliver services. The wider introduction of the gateway, which a recent Government document says is a fundamental feature of the welfare reform agenda, means that many people will operate as personal advisers in the Employment Service. Will the Minister give figures showing how many people in the service are working on the new deal, how many personal advisers he believes need to be recruited to deliver the gateway for existing new deal groups in the years ahead, and how much extra effort and how many extra staff will be needed to deliver the further proposals for an intensive personal service for the many people who are not registered as unemployed but who may, in labour force survey terms, be seeking work?
I mentioned firms that have signed up for the new deal but have not yet taken on any new dealers. It will not do for the Minister, 18 months into office, to laud the success of the new programme but, when put under pressure, to blame what he calls the rotten statistical systems that he inherited from the previous Government. The new deal is a new programme and we were told that it would be properly appraised—the Government should be able to offer the information for which I ask.
The media have identified the problem of paedophiles in the programme, outlining some disturbing cases in which serious sex offenders have been referred to work that involves children. I thank the Minister for his letter of 8 December; it was courteous of him to write to explain the position. He said in the letter:
The primary responsibility for checking the suitability of applicants lies firmly with employers.
The Government cannot entirely wash their hands of the matter, however. There is a rather disconcerting tendency for new dealers to be offered almost indiscriminately to fill any gap in the labour market. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), I think, believed that they would all be classroom assistants; we have also been told that they will all be child minders. We must be careful in allocating new dealers to positions with such sensitive responsibilities. I would be grateful if the Minister could say in rather more detail than he was able to do in his letter what steps are being taken to prevent sex offenders from being referred to jobs involving children.
The Select Committee report made helpful and interesting comments on the gateway, but there seems to be a problem of people becoming stuck. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us how many new dealers, especially in pathfinder areas, are still in the gateway four months after entering it. There seems to be a problem of people being left in the gateway. There are theoretical powers to move them on, but it is not clear how often these are being used.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some practical questions. If we are to assess the effectiveness of the new deal, the celebration of individual achievements will not do as the basis for appraising expensive new policy options.

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): We have had a good and a cheerful debate—and so it should be, because the new deal is a cheerful programme, bringing hope and opportunity to people. I speak as one who has visited Cornwall and seen the excellent work that is being done there on the new deal. In fact, I have visited the constituencies of all my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate. I join everyone who has paid tribute to the Employment Service, to the new deal personal advisers and to everyone else who is working so hard to make a success of this important and ambitious programme.
I join my hon. Friends in finding it disappointing—although, perhaps, all too revealing—that not a single Conservative Back Bencher has taken part in the debate. I accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) apologised on behalf of the Conservative member of the Select Committee. However, it shows a dismissive attitude towards one of the most pressing social challenges confronting this country.
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made a few amusing remarks and sniped here and there at the new deal. However, we had not a scintilla of a suggestion as to what the Conservatives might do differently, or what they might argue ought to have been done differently. They have a right nerve to talk about the priorities of allocating expenditure on new deal programmes when there would have been no new deal if, by some mischance, the Conservatives had won the general election and they had had their way.
The hon. Member for Havant made an important and serious point about sex offenders. I have written to him, to the Chairman of the Select Committee—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland—and to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) spelling out the position. The hon. Member for Havant said that the primary responsibility had to be on employers to have appropriate procedures to ensure protection for children and other vulnerable people.
The Employment Service follows common-sense procedures, and lists are held manually by a senior officer in each jobcentre. Staff are advised and reminded that referrals to vacancies should be made where appropriate. Clearly, there will be cases where it is not appropriate to refer particular people who come into a jobcentre to particular things. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, from a senior level right down through the Employment Service, no one would knowingly refer anyone who was likely to offend to a position where he or she would be working with children or other vulnerable people.
There is no doubt that the present system is not absolutely foolproof, and that is why the Government have an interdepartmental working party to examine precisely these matters. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be making a statement shortly on the establishment of a criminal records agency to set out new and better procedures which, I hope, will command the support of the whole House.
I wish to refer to the Select Committee recommendations. A great number of tributes were paid, rightly, to the work of personal advisers. The report referred to the importance of following up the work of advisers, monitoring the case load and ensuring that the very best was made of the innovation—so important to

the new deal—of the continuity and support that personal advisers give. The Government have acted on that recommendation, and we are monitoring the case load.
Moreover, we have given advice throughout Employment Service offices—involving training and a series of meetings with personal advisers—to focus their role and responsibilities on what is important, and to ensure that people are progressing in terms of enhancing their employability, moving into jobs or moving into other options that are right for them.
I find these debates and the Select Committee interviews and reports enormously helpful. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland rightly, and kindly, said, we are a listening and learning Department. We have been flexible, and we have been responsive to the Select Committee recommendations.
The hon. Member for Havant referred to the publication of information on the destinations towards which people are moving at different stages of the gateway. Recommendation 5 said that that should be disaggregated, and we have done that. The information is there for all to see in table 11 of the Government Statistical Service statistics.
We acted on recommendation 18 on capacity building in the voluntary sector, and on recommendation 22 on ethnic minorities. That recommendation also informed a large range of initiatives that we have taken to promote the involvement of, and extend opportunities for, ethnic minorities. Several of my hon. Friends referred to that important issue—notably my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—as did the hon. Member for Hereford.
It is not the case that such issues were not anticipated at the outset as crucial to the new deal. I am on record as saying right at the beginning of the new deal, rather as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said, that an acid test of its success or otherwise is whether ethnic minorities get full and fair opportunities through it.
That is precisely why we said right at the outset that there had to be ethnic monitoring—for the first time in any Employment Service programme—so that we could see what progress people were making, and assess which initiatives were working and which areas were not delivering opportunities for ethnic minorities.

Ms Abbott: If an understanding of those issues was built into the programme from the beginning, why was not more about them written specifically into Reed's contract, and why was not more care taken to ensure that Reed worked side by side with organisations that had some knowledge of labour market conditions in Hackney and other inner-city areas?

Mr. Smith: It was made clear to all contractors in the process that they would be judged against the viability of the programmes that they initiated to meet the needs of the area that they were proposing to serve. Clearly, in Hackney, as in some other areas, especial importance will need to be attached to the opportunities that the programmes will extend to ethnic minorities.
The Government attach great importance to that, and we have taken a range of initiatives: there is an ethnic minority advisory group to assist the national advisory task force; after widespread consultation throughout the


country with ethnic minorities, as well as the general public, we have drawn up an ethnic minority strategy: and we regularly review the membership and work of the partnerships throughout the country, which have such an important role in involving ethnic minorities and ensuring that programmes are sensitive to their needs.
I do not go to a meeting with partnerships or local providers—today, I attended meetings in Manchester, Bolton and Stockton to see at first hand how the new deal is working—without raising the question of the work that is done to ensure fair opportunities for ethnic minorities.
We have to be constantly vigilant. The levels of youth and long-term unemployment among ethnic minorities in this country are a scandal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said, they are as much as two or three times higher than the average. That shows the failure in the past to provide the necessary training and opportunities, and to challenge the stereotypes and discrimination that so often stand in the way of progress.
There can be no room for complacency, and the Government are certainly not complacent. We can start to judge progress by the statistics that we have published; they show that ethnic minorities are moving into unsubsidised jobs from the new deal at very nearly the same rate as the total population. Ethnic minorities are disproportionately over-represented on the full-time education and training and the voluntary sector options of the new deal, but they are under-represented on the employment and environmental task force options.
We are analysing that to see how far the under-representation on the employment option results from a lower rate of referral to employer option vacancies and how far it results from a lower rate of acceptance into those vacancies by employers. We will be able to compare how different areas are doing, see what is working best and take corrective action where necessary.

Mr. Keetch: rose—

Mr. Smith: I am sorry, but time is limited and I wish to cover many points that arose during the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington referred to Reed and its contract. I assure her that that contract was let with absolute propriety, as were all the other new deal contracts, and with the same procedures being followed in every case. The criteria were applied fairly and properly, and the decisions were made by officials.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that assurance and, equally, my assurance that performance will be scrutinised closely, whether a partnership is led by the private sector or by the employment sector or is a joint venture. They will all be judged by the same standards, and corrective action will be taken to tackle under-performance. That approach is at the heart of the continual improvement strategy for the new deal. We have consulted the partnerships about that strategy, and it is important in turning, already good programme into an even better one for the future.
It is an enormous accomplishment to have helped 38,500 young people off benefit and into jobs, and it is a great achievement that some 30,000 young people have

been placed in high-quality training and work experience options and some 5,500 lone parents have been helped into work. However, we are in the early stages. The Committee's report underlines the fact that it is too early to start drawing conclusions about the success or otherwise of the programmes, but the progress that has been made so far is very heartening.
The hon. Member for Havant accused my hon. Friends of being so swept along by their enthusiasm for successful case histories that they neglected the dispassionate analysis that he attempted. I would accuse him of the converse failure: he was so concerned to stick to what he thought was dispassionate analysis that he wholly overlooked the human and real benefits of a programme that is bringing hope and opportunity to many thousands of our fellow citizens. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley mentioned a constituent who said that her experience of the new deal was that it was the first time that she had ever been taken seriously. That is typical of the comments that I have heard from many new deal participants and their advisers.
I commend my hon. Friends for the energy that they have put into promoting the new deal programme and understanding how it is working locally. They have worked with employers, the voluntary sector and the Employment Service to make the new deal better. It is an innovation of the new deal that it has involved Members of Parliament—especially my hon. Friends, but also Liberal Democrat Members and even some Conservative Members—in actively supporting and promoting the programme in their areas. That is a valuable and—to the clients, employers and the Employment Service—valued role for Members of Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) raised the important question of the scope of the new deal to generate additional jobs. I was struck by the evidence that the Committee found, especially from its studies in Cornwall, of small businesses taking on people whom they would not have employed before because they could not have taken the risk without the support of the new deal.
That is certainly being studied as part of our evaluation strategy for the new deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth asked for details of the surveys. Two will be undertaken: a qualitative survey in May and June 1999, which will be published in September; and a quantitative survey next September, which will be published in April 2000, or by July at the latest. A further important milestone in new deal evaluation, which will address the questions of several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Havant, is the macro-analysis of the effectiveness of the new deal, which will be published next September. It would greatly surprise me if that had nothing to say about the issues raised.
I am a little sceptical of the argument by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth that it would make sense to probe employers at the point at which they sign a new deal agreement or take on a new deal recruit as to whether an extra job had been generated. Some employers might suspect the motive behind that question, feeling that, if they gave the wrong answer, the subsidy might be withdrawn. We must be careful. Like my hon. Friend, I want to collect all available evidence and to publish an unprecedented amount of it. I thank my hon. Friends who have paid tribute to the publication of information about


the new deal. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I shall continue to be much more open about publication than any of our predecessors ever were.

Mr. Willetts: The Minister has claimed that new deal jobs cost £1,000 per extra job. On what basis does he make that calculation if he is claiming that he does not have the statistics?

Mr. Smith: The estimate is based on the unit cost of the different steps that people took to get on to the new deal. For example, for those going into unsubsidised jobs, the estimate is based on an estimate of the cost of the help that they received in the gateway before entering the job. For those who have moved into subsidised jobs, the estimate is based on the cost of the gateway plus the cost of the subsidy and their support in the job.
The hon. Member for Havant and his hon. Friends will regret having slung around their necks the ridiculous millstone of an £11,000—plus cost of new jobs. That is like waiting until week two of the operation of the channel tunnel and claiming that every passenger going through it on a train is costing millions of pounds. The hon. Gentleman loads the whole budget against the first people.

Mr. Willetts: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Smith: No, let the hon. Gentleman listen to a lecture in elementary economics. He is fond of lecturing us on that. His figures are a ludicrous, extravagant, cynical fabrication, and they do a disservice to all the people throughout the country who are working hard to make a success of the new deal. They do a grave disservice to new deal participants, who appreciate the new hope and opportunity that the programme is bringing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) made an important point. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend and others refer to the success and the revolutionary approach that the new deal for lone parents represents. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no difference in philosophy between our approaches to the two programmes. Both are about employability, about helping people forward and about helping people into work if work is the appropriate option and choice for them. Both programmes are bringing new hope and opportunity to thousands of people who were denied it so badly by the Conservative party.
On the letter and advice being sent to new parents under the new deal, let me assure my hon. Friends that we shall send out new information in the new year. It will give even more emphasis to the range of help available, training opportunities, help with child care and transport costs and much more. As for the text of the letter, the publication of our other promotional material will provide an opportune moment at which to revisit the wording on the education and training opportunities that are available to see whether it can be made still clearer.
We are proud of the new deals. We are proud of the new deal for young people, the new deal for older, long-term unemployed people which is coming on stream, the new deal for lone parents, and the new deal for disabled people, because they give new hope and opportunities to our country.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions which he was directed by paragraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates) to put at that hour.

VOTE ON ACCOUNT 1999–2000

Class IV, Vote 1

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,299,414,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Home Office on police; the Forensic Science Service; registration of forensic practitioners; emergency planning; fire services; the Fire Service College; criminal policy and programmes including offender programmes; the prevention of drug abuse; crime reduction and prevention; provision of services relating to the Crime and Disorder Act; criminal justice service research; criminal injuries compensation; organised and international crime; control of immigration and nationality; issue of passports; community and constitutional services; firearms compensation and related matters; and on administration (excluding the provision for prisons administration carried on Class IV, Vote 2).

Class IV, Vote 2

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £766, 651,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Home Office in England and Wales on prisons (including central administration and other costs arising from the detention of prisoners); placements in secure accommodation under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933; Prison Service colleges; the Parole Board; the storage and maintenance of equipment; transport management; grants to "Prisoners Abroad", and Welfare to Work Schemes.

Class 1, Vote 1

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £6,826,077,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Department for Education and Employment on voluntary and special schools; the Assisted Places Scheme; the provision of education for under-fives; City Colleges and other specialist schools; grant-maintained schools and schools conducted by Education Associations; music and ballet schools; the school curriculum and its assessment; the youth service and other educational services and initiatives; careers guidance and services; payments for or in connection with teacher training; higher and further education provision and initiatives; loans to students, student awards and other student grants and their administration; the payment of access funds; reimbursement of fees for qualifying European Community students; compensation payments to teachers and staff of certain institutions; expenditure on other central government grants to local authorities; the provision of training and assessment programmes for young people and adults; initiatives to improve training and qualifications arrangements and access to these; the promotion of enterprise and the encouragement of self employment; payments for education, training and employment projects assisted by the European Community and refunds to the European Community; events associated with the UK presidency of the EU; the UK subscription to the ILO; help for unemployed people; the promotion of equal opportunities, disability rights, childcare provision and co-ordination of certain issues of particular importance to women; the payment of certain fees to the Home Office; the Department's own administration and research and that of Capita; information and publicity services; expenditure via Training and Enterprise Councils and amounts retained by them as surpluses and spent by them on training; other initiatives within their articles and memoranda of association; expenditure in connection with the sale of the student loans debt; and on expenditure in connection with the Welfare to Work Programme and Millennium Volunteers.

Class 1, Vote 3

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £782,937,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Employment Service of the Department for Education and Employment on: measures to help people, particularly people who are unemployed and people with disabilities, into work; the elements of the delivery of the Jobseeker's Allowance undertaken by the Employment Service; the administration of, and where appropriate the payment of allowances to people participating in, the Welfare to Work programme and other employment programmes, pilot programmes and new measures to help people into work; the payment of temporary subsidies to employers; the payment of grants to voluntary bodies and local authorities towards the provision of supported employment; and grant in aid and the provision of a temporary loan facility to Remploy Limited; assistance and advice on employment service and labour market issues to international organisations; research; publicity; and administration.

Class XII

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £22,716,706,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put by Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, etc.).

ESTIMATES, 1998–99 (NAVY) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1999 an additional number not exceeding 10 officers be maintained for Service in the Reserve Marine Forces.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1998–99

Resolved,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £924,068,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charges for civil services which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1999, as set out in HC857 of Session 1997–98.

ESTIMATES, 1999–2000 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT

Resolvsed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £69,610,689,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards

defraying the charges for civil and defence services in Class I, Votes 2 and 4; Classes II and III; Class IV, Vote 3; Classes V to XI; Classes XIII to XVIII; and Classes XVIII, A and XVIII, B for the year ending on 31st March 2000, as set out in HC1134, 1135 and 1136 of Session 1997–98.

Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Stephen Byers, Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Dawn Primarolo and Ms Patricia Hewitt do prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL

Dawn Primarolo accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1999 and 2000: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 14th December and to be printed [Bill 8].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill:
(a) at the sitting on Monday 14th December, proceedings thereon may continue, though opposed, until midnight; and
(b) at the sitting on Tuesday 15th December, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on Second Reading of the Bill at Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Hill.]

Ordered,
That at the sitting on Tuesday 15th December, Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union Documents) shall not apply to any Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to fisheries, and the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings thereon not later than Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Hill.]

EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Russell Brown and Mrs. Linda Gilroy be discharged from the European scrutiny Committee and Mr. Michael Connarty and Dr. Nick Palmer be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Hill.]

Mr. Rodney Ledward

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]

Mr. Michael Howard: At the outset, I should like to express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for their presence tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) have told me that they have engagements in their constituencies, which is why they are not here.
The subject of this debate is the most painful that I have encountered in the fifteen and a half years that I have had the honour to represent the Folkestone and Hythe constituency in this place. It will be necessary for me to deal, however briefly, with some of the individual cases involved—cases of women who placed themselves in the care of a consultant gynaecologist, who gave him their trust and who have suffered physical and mental anguish ever since. Those cases will be harrowing to recount and distressing to listen to, not least for those who have already suffered so much.
Mr. Rodney Ledward worked as a consultant gynaecologist in south-east Kent between 1980 and 1996. He worked both in the national health service and in the private sector. In 1996, Mr. Ledward was dismissed by South Kent Hospitals NHS trust and removed from BUPA's list of approved consultants. In September 1998, the General Medical Council found him guilty of several cases of serious professional misconduct, and withdrew his professional registration.
At the latest count, about 418 of Mr. Ledward's former patients have contacted the South Kent Hospitals NHS trust or the South East Kent community health council, or both, to express their concerns about the treatment that they received while under his care. The South East Kent community health council, to whose chairman, Paul Watkins, and chief officer, Jean Howkins, I pay tribute, has called on the Secretary of State to hold a public inquiry into how these tragic cases were allowed to happen and into the lessons to be learned from them, both for the NHS and for the private sector. I support that call, and that is why I have asked for this debate.
To explain what happened, it is necessary to refer to some of the individual complaints that have been made. They include unnecessary and inappropriate surgical procedures, including hysterectomy, perforation of the bladder and the bowel causing incontinence and mental trauma following the discovery by women and their families that, unnecessarily, they could no longer give birth.
One woman was apparently left with a dead full-term baby inside her in the maternity ward for three days before being induced. Several women with mild stress incontinence had bladder repair surgery without the usual pre-operative investigation, which might well have led to alternative non-operative methods of treatment. Many patients are still grossly incontinent. I need hardly dwell on the blight that this has cast over their lives.
Many women had hysterectomies performed on them at an unusually young age. Some were in their 20s. Some have since been told that they were too young and that

their hysterectomy was unnecessary. The consequences for them and their families are obvious and final. Many still suffer from very bad adhesions and have had to have further operations—in one case, as many as 17 further operations. Many are still in constant pain.
One woman had an ovary removed. Shortly after the operation, something burst and she was found to have 38 abscesses. She was readmitted to hospital and had to have a colostomy. She still suffers great pain.
Some women had their ovaries removed without consent. A number have reported being seen in the course of a NHS consultation and being told, quite wrongly, that the treatment that they needed was not available on the NHS.
There is one case that I shall describe rather more fully. It is the case of Brenda Johnson. In September 1994, she went to her general practitioner with bladder problems that were causing her concern. Her doctor referred her to Mr. Ledward, who said that she needed a repair, but would need a hysterectomy in six months' time. He suggested that she had a vaginal hysterectomy, which he said was a simple operation with no stitching, and that she would be fine within a few days. She was told that the waiting time for an NHS patient would be two years, but she could have the operation carried out within a few days privately in St. Saviour's hospital.
Mrs. Johnson says:
You put your life and body into these surgeons' hands so you have to trust. I didn't think it was so severe and went back to my GP who agreed with me but said, 'Trust the surgeon, he may have seen something I haven't.' I asked around and was assured by other people who had hysterectomies it would be fine after a few weeks. With great reluctance I went ahead.
On Thursday 13 September 1984, aged 37, Mrs. Johnson was operated on at St. Saviour's hospital. She was bleeding after surgery and became very seriously ill as the evening wore on. Her anaesthetist saw her and contacted Mr. Ledward to say that she was in mortal danger. He did not return for many hours. Mrs. Johnson was in a terrible state and unconscious. Eventually further surgery took place. Mrs. Johnson's husband was called into the hospital in the early hours of the morning and told that she was dying. For five days she was barely conscious. She says:
I was in absolute agony and kept under sedation with morphine. I had a blood transfusion in one arm, a saline drip in the other and a catheter. When I started to regain proper consciousness, after five days, I could hardly move a muscle and was in sheer agony. I thought, 'You wouldn't let a dog suffer like this.
Since then, Mrs. Johnson has suffered constant pain. To add insult to injury, the action that she brought to receive compensation for her pain and suffering was dismissed by the High Court. She has obtained no redress. I hope it may still be possible for that to be put right.
The questions that arise from Brenda Johnson's case and all the other cases are not difficult to identify. How could such a state of affairs have gone on for so long? When did the various authorities—the former South East Kent health authority, the former South East Thames regional health authority, the South Kent Hospitals NHS trust, St. Saviour's hospital, the General Medical Council—first become aware of concerns about Mr. Ledward's professional conduct and performance? How many complaints did they receive about him? What action did they take? What has happened to the medical records and consent forms of Mr. Ledward's former


private patients, which are alleged to have disappeared or no longer to be available? Above all, what lessons can be learned from these tragic events to ensure that, so far as it is humanly possible to do so, nothing like them ever happens again?

Dr. Howard Stoate: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Does he believe that, were the complaints procedures in private hospitals to be the same as in NHS hospitals, that might have alleviated some of the problems about which we have heard tonight?

Mr. Howard: I shall come to that. I fear that the course of events in the national health service in these cases does not enable me to answer that question with a simple yes. We would be wrong and utterly complacent if we assumed that complaints procedures in the NHS are anything like all they should be. However, I entirely agree that more should be done in relation to the regulation of the private sector. I shall deal with that point.
I do not lightly ask for a public inquiry. The Minister will probably tell us how expensive it would be and how much time it would take, but I do not see what other means there is to satisfy public concerns on the matter. My constituents who have suffered want to know the course of the investigations. They want to know that all the right questions are being asked and that all the answers have been tested.
Comparisons will inevitably be drawn with the public inquiry that is taking place in Bristol. The tragic events that I have drawn to the attention of the House this evening are, in my view, at least as serious as the events that led to the Bristol inquiry. Moreover, those events raise questions that will not be covered by the Bristol inquiry. In particular, they raise questions about the private sector in health care and the need for it to be effectively regulated. I understand that those involved in the provision of private health care would welcome such regulation. Indeed, I am told that they have been asking for that, but so far their pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
Be that as it may, these questions, and the others that I have raised, are serious and weighty. South East Kent community health council—an authoritative and serious body—reached the conclusion that they would be answered effectively only by a public inquiry. I agree with its conclusion, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and the hon. Member for Dover. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he agrees, too.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on securing the debate. He and I would prefer not to be having it, but it is important, especially for the women patients who have been affected by the appalling practice of one hospital consultant, Mr. Rodney Ledward.
Let me say at the outset how sorry I am—on behalf of the whole Government and, I believe, the whole House—to all the women who have been affected by Mr. Ledward's activities. They should never have had to experience the physical and mental distress that the right hon. and learned Gentleman outlined so graphically.
Like every other person who has had any contact with these events, I am appalled by two things: Mr. Ledward's activities and the fact that they were allowed to go on for so long. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has set out very clearly his views—and, quite rightly, the views of his constituents—on these matters. Let me express my own views about Mr. Rodney Ledward. He was an incompetent, irresponsible and arrogant surgeon who seemingly had little or no regard for his patients. Women came to him when they were feeling vulnerable and scared, expecting first-class treatment. Instead, he caused a catalogue of harm, which is both horrific and unforgivable.
Mr. Ledward has not only undermined confidence in services at South Kent Hospitals NHS trust, but has damaged public confidence throughout the health care system. Since the days of Mr. Ledward, the trust, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, has recruited new doctors to its obstetrics and gynaecology department, and has also set in place new quality control procedures.
Let me describe the three ways in which the Government and the health service are responding to these events, and respond to the specific points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. First, the immediate priority has been to identify former patients of Mr. Ledward who might need help. The trust shares my deep concern, and that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, about the activities of Mr. Ledward. It is making every effort to assist any former patients. I am pleased that the local community health council has commended the trust for dealing with the situation in an open and responsive way since Mr. Ledward was struck off by the General Medical Council.
Special arrangements have been set in place to help former patients. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that, to date, 418 patients have called South Kent Hospitals NHS trust. I can tell him that 168 have already been seen. Preliminary analysis shows that 22 NHS and 15 private patients may have suffered injury as a result of an operation by Mr. Ledward.
I would encourage any former patients of Mr. Ledward to contact the trust, if they have not already done so. It will then assess, quite properly, each patient's needs, and provide appropriate services, including medical care, counselling, claims for compensation or simply the facility to talk through any problems or concerns that they may have.
Secondly, I shall describe how we are investigating the background to these awful events. I have heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman's call for an independent public inquiry. As he knows, he is not alone in calling for such an inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will consider those views extremely carefully, and make an announcement as soon as possible on how we intend to proceed. I promise him that, whatever happens, the Government will publish the facts, so that the patients affected, the public and national health service staff can see how those events unfolded.
What I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman this evening is that, after the General Medical Council decision and after serious concerns were raised by a number of Mr. Ledward's former patients, including the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents, the Secretary of State instructed the NHS trust to carry out an urgent internal review of the circumstances leading up to


Mr. Ledward's dismissal, and to report to the Secretary of State. That report has now been received, and has provided a useful starting point. However, it has raised even more questions, to which I have asked the NHS trust to provide answers. I want to be able to provide as comprehensive an answer as possible to all the questions the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others have posed.
Let me give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a flavour of just some of the questions that have been prompted by the preliminary analysis. Why did no alarm bells sound when Mr. Ledward apparently had 12 medical litigation cases against him in the years from 1983? Given that concerns were apparently raised about Mr. Ledward with the regional health authority as early as 1991, why was nothing done? Why was no investigation prompted when, in 1994, following a serious complication involving surgery by Mr. Ledward on a female patient, he apparently agreed to be on call for his own patients?
Given that doctors appointed to Mr. Ledward's department were apparently told, at the time of their appointment, that there were concerns about the department that they were joining, why was nothing done? If it is true that serious concerns were raised about Mr. Ledward's practice in 1995, in relation to his attitude to patients, his unnecessary roughness during physical examinations of those patients, his unnecessary highlighting of private practice options to NHS patients, and his non-attendance at NHS ante-natal clinics, how is it that subsequently nothing was done?
Why did not the standard-setting role of the royal colleges manage to penetrate the world in which Mr. Ledward operated? Why was Mr. Ledward in charge of clinical audit in that hospital from 1989–96? How did policies in place in the health service at that time fail to prevent or detect and stop those horrendous events?
Those are only some of the questions that are raised by this deplorable case. We are determined to get answers to them all, and to the questions that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his constituents are asking. The existing evidence reveals that the problem has a long history. Inadequate mechanisms were in place for dealing with it and, most appallingly of all, the women affected by it were the last to know what on earth was going on. That is what is most deplorable about all this.
The third issue is how we are now seeking to ensure that such a tragedy is never repeated. It is important to stress that, overwhelmingly in the national health service, patients receive safe and effective care and treatment day in, day out. Most doctors do an excellent job, but when things go wrong, in the NHS or elsewhere, it is patients who suffer. As we see in this case, the consequences can be appalling. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said, nobody pretends that mistakes will not happen. They will. Doctors, clinicians and others working in any health care system are only human.
However, failings such as these highlight the need for new safeguards. We need to develop a new culture of openness in the NHS that acknowledges, highlights and deals with problems promptly, rather than pretending that

they do not exist. The preliminary evidence in this case shows overwhelmingly that that was the problem in the hospital in question. We also need a new system of quality assurance that supports clinicians in developing and maintaining good practice, and that nips problems in the bud.
The chairman of the British Medical Association, Dr. Ian Bogle, recently wrote:
the days when doctors thought they could turn a blind eye to the incompetence of their colleagues have gone.
Dr. Bogle is right. It is in no one's interests—neither patient nor doctor—to cover up cases of outright failure.
The Government believe that new safeguards are necessary for patient safety and public confidence. We are taking five important steps. First, we are establishing a new duty of clinical governance to put quality assurance systems in place in all parts of the NHS. Secondly, we are placing a new emphasis on publishing clinical outcome data, so that results can be compared over time and between clinical teams. Thirdly, all doctors will in future be required to participate in a national audit programme, including specialty and sub-specialty national external audit programmes, to ensure that their performance is up to scratch. Fourthly, individual doctors will be required to share their results with the medical director of their NHS trust and the trust's lead clinician for clinical governance. Fifthly, a new external body—the commission for health improvement—will be established, whose job will be to monitor quality standards externally and to intervene promptly if necessary when things are going wrong, as they clearly were in the case of Mr. Rodney Ledward.
Those five points summarise the action that the Government are taking. The medical profession, too, has to play its full part. I believe that the leadership of the profession recognises the need for change, but that recognition must be matched by a commitment from the profession as a whole to take prompt and effective action. Without that, the whole system of professional self-regulation will not command the public's confidence.
The Government, like the profession, want professional self-regulation to work, but no one should be in any doubt that the system is under test. It must become more modern, more open and more accountable. If professional self-regulation is to be the bedrock of high clinical standards in the future, it cannot operate in isolation. It must form part of an integrated framework of new mechanisms that embrace the profession, the regulatory machinery, the educational bodies and the NHS.
I know that all this comes too late for the women who suffered at the hands of Mr. Ledward. We shall do everything that we can to help them. We shall get to the bottom of how Mr. Ledward was allowed to wreak such damage on so many of them, and we shall learn the lessons of these terrible events, so that we can do our very best to ensure that patients in the future are protected from bad doctors such as Mr. Ledward.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.